United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS F I L E D
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
December 11, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
No. 05-61193 Clerk
Summary Calendar
SOFIA HERNANDEZ DE CERDA; LUIS ROLANDO CERDA RAMIREZ,
Petitioners,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A96 032 294
--------------------
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The petitioners, Sofia Hernandez De Cerda and her husband,
Luis Rolando Cerda Ramirez, seek review of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision denying their application for
the cancellation of removal. They argue that the BIA erred in
finding that they failed to show 10 years of continuous physical
presence in the United States and in finding that their removal
would not result in extreme hardship to their children and Luis’s
parents.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 05-61193
-2-
Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b), the Attorney General has
the authority to cancel removal of inadmissible aliens who show,
inter alia, continuous physical presence in the United States for
a period of 10 years and where “removal would result in
exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s spouse,
parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an
alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(b)(A)&(D). Because cancellation of removal is governed
by § 1229b, the jurisdictional bar of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) is
implicated in the instant case. Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i),
provides that:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, . . . no
court shall have jurisdiction to review—-
(i) any judgment regarding the granting of
relief under section 1182(h), 1182(i), 1229b,
1229c, or 1255 of this title . . . .
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)(emphasis added). Because it involved the
exercise of discretion, this court lacks jurisdiction to review
the BIA’s hardship determination. See Rueda v. Ashcroft, 380
F.3d 831, 831 (5th Cir. 2004). Although review of the BIA’s
finding regarding the lack of continuous physical presence is not
jurisdictionally barred, all four of the requirements of § 1229b
must be satisfied to qualify for the cancellation of removal.
See Berzosa-Flores v. Gonzales, 162 F. App’x 275, 279-80 (5th
Cir. 2005). We therefore decline to consider the petitioners’
challenge to the BIA’s finding on continuous physical presence.
To the extent that the petitioners present a constitutional due
No. 05-61193
-3-
process argument, this court retains jurisdiction. See Balogun
v. Ashcroft, 270 F.3d 274, 278 n.11 (5th Cir. 2001).
Nevertheless, as the record reveals that the BIA gave “meaningful
consideration of the relevant substantial evidence” supporting
the petitioners’ claims, the petitioners have made no showing
that the decision to deny their application for cancellation of
removal violated their right to due process. See Abdel-Masieh v.
INS, 73 F.3d 579, 585 (5th Cir. 1996).
PETITION DISMISSED IN PART; DENIED IN PART.