Cruz Ventura v. Garland

Case: 20-61203 Document: 00516299063 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. 20-61203 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk

Jerson Obdulio Cruz Ventura,

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of
the Board of Immigration Appeals
No. A 205 001 748

Before Smith, Stewart, and Graves, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jerson Cruz Ventura, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for
review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismis-
sing his appeal of the denial by an Immigration Judge (I.J.) of his application
for cancellation of removal. Cruz Ventura contends that he demonstrated

*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circum-
stances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-61203 Document: 00516299063 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/28/2022

No. 20-61203

that his removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to
his children. Because he does not challenge the BIA’s denial of his motion
for a remand to consider new evidence, he has abandoned any challenge to
that determination. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir.
2003); Chambers v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008).
We review the BIA’s decision and consider the I.J.’s decision only to
the extent that it influenced the BIA. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224
(5th Cir. 2018). Factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence, legal
determinations de novo. Guerrero Trejo v. Garland, 3 F.4th 760, 774 (5th Cir.
2021).
Cancellation of removal is available to applicants who have been con-
tinuously present in the United States for ten years or more before filing an
application; who can establish good moral character during that time; who
have no disqualifying convictions; and whose spouse, children, or parent
would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if the applicant
were removed. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). Despite Cruz Ventura’s assertions
to the contrary, the consequences facing his children if he were removed are
not “‘substantially’ beyond the ordinary hardship that would be expected
when a close family member leaves this country.” Guerrero Trejo, 3 F.4th
at 775 (quoting In Re Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56, 62 (BIA 2001)).
Substantial evidence supports the determination that Cruz Ventura was ineli-
gible for cancellation of removal. See id. at 774.
Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED. The government’s
motion to dismiss is also DENIED.

2