Case: 20-61198 Document: 00516298748 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/28/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 28, 2022
No. 20-61198
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Jose Martin Salazar Juarez,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A206 152 017
Before Barksdale, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jose Martin Salazar Juarez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
for review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) affirming the
Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of cancellation of removal. Juarez challenges
the BIA’s determination that he did not legally qualify to be considered for
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-61198 Document: 00516298748 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/28/2022
No. 20-61198
cancellation because he failed to establish that his removal would cause
exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his four United States citizen
children. (He does not challenge the denial of his request for voluntary
departure and has, therefore, waived that claim. E.g., Soadjede v. Ashcroft,
324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir. 2003) (explaining challenges not raised and
briefed deemed abandoned).)
In considering the BIA’s decision (and the IJ’s decision, to the extent
it influenced the BIA), legal conclusions are reviewed de novo; factual
findings, for substantial evidence. E.g., Orellana-Monson v. Holder, 685 F.3d
511, 517–18 (5th Cir. 2012). Under the substantial-evidence standard,
petitioner must demonstrate “the evidence is so compelling that no
reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion”. Chen v. Gonzales,
470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006).
The Attorney General may cancel the removal of a nonpermanent
resident who meets certain statutory prerequisites, including demonstrating
his removal “would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to”
his qualifying relatives. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D).
To prove exceptional or extremely unusual hardship, Juarez must
demonstrate that his children “would suffer hardship that is substantially
different from, or beyond, that which would normally be expected from the
deportation of an alien with close family members here”. Matter of Monreal-
Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56, 65 (B.I.A. 2001). He has not made that showing
or shown that the IJ or BIA erred in applying the pertinent legal standard.
Trejo v. Garland, 3 F.4th 760, 775 (5th Cir. 2021) (explaining “alien must
demonstrate a truly exceptional situation in which a qualifying relative would
suffer consequences” (citation omitted)).
Because the hardship finding was dispositive, the BIA did not err by
failing to address the other requirements for Juarez’ cancellation claim,
2
Case: 20-61198 Document: 00516298748 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/28/2022
No. 20-61198
including his good-moral-character assertion. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429
U.S. 24, 25 (1976) (explaining “[a]s a general rule courts and agencies are not
required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to
the results they reach”).
And, to the extent he claims the BIA violated his due-process rights,
Juarez has not demonstrated that his deportation proceedings were
fundamentally unfair or that he was “denied the opportunity to be heard or
present evidence”. Toscano-Gil v. Trominski, 210 F.3d 470, 474 (5th Cir.
2000).
DENIED.
3