Case: 22-60108 Document: 00516491949 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/30/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
September 30, 2022
No. 22-60108
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Melina Darzzete Guillen-Perez,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A208 896 120
Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Melina Guillen-Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, entered the
United States in 2004. The Department of Homeland Security charged her
in 2016 with removability on the ground that she was present without
admission or parole. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Guillen-Perez
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 22-60108 Document: 00516491949 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/30/2022
No. 22-60108
appeared before an immigration judge (“IJ”), admitted the allegations, and
conceded removability. She then applied for cancellation of removal and, in
the alternative, voluntary departure. 1
Following a hearing on the merits, the IJ held that Guillen-Perez did
not qualify for cancellation of removal because she had not demonstrated that
her removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her
United States citizen child, Karla. The IJ granted Guillen-Perez’s alternative
request for voluntary departure. Guillen-Perez appealed to the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which affirmed the IJ’s decision without
opinion. She filed a timely petition for review, challenging the IJ’s and BIA’s
hardship determination. The government contends that this court lacks
jurisdiction to consider Guillen-Perez’s challenge to the hardship
determination under this court’s recent decision in Castillo-Gutierrez v.
Garland, 43 F.4th 477 (5th Cir. 2022).
When the BIA affirms the IJ without opinion, as it did here, this court
reviews the IJ’s decision. See Moin v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 415, 418 (5th Cir.
2003). In order to be eligible for cancellation of removal under § 1229b(b)(1),
an applicant must demonstrate, inter alia, “that removal would result in
exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to [her] spouse, parent, or child,
who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for
permanent residence.” Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), this court is
prohibited from reviewing “any judgment regarding the granting of relief
under section . . . 1229b.” However, nothing in the statute “shall be
construed as precluding review of constitutional claims or questions of law.”
§ 1252(a)(2)(D). In Trejo v. Garland, this court stated that the BIA’s
1
Guillen-Perez also sought withholding of removal and protection under the
Convention Against Torture, but she withdrew that application at the merits hearing.
2
Case: 22-60108 Document: 00516491949 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/30/2022
No. 22-60108
hardship determination is not subject to the jurisdictional bar in
§ 1252(a)(2)(B). 3 F.4th 760, 766–67 (5th Cir. 2021).
The Supreme Court recently held in Patel v. Garland that the
§ 1252(a)(2)(B) jurisdictional bar applies to “authoritative decisions.”
142 S. Ct. 1614, 1621–22 (2022). And in Castillo-Gutierrez, this court held
that Patel abrogated Trejo. 43 F.4th at 481 (“Patel makes clear that the BIA’s
determination that a citizen would face exceptional and extremely unusual
hardship is an authoritative decision which falls within the scope of
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) and is beyond [this court’s] review.”). Castillo-Gutierrez
dictates that Guillen-Perez’s challenge to the BIA’s hardship determination
be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).
Guillen-Perez also argues that the IJ violated her due process rights by
failing to appropriately weigh the hardship factors, denying her the
opportunity to review evidence before the merits hearing, and failing to act
as a neutral factfinder. This court retains jurisdiction to review
“constitutional claims or questions of law” raised in a petition for review.
§ 1252(a)(2)(D). Guillen-Perez did not make any due process arguments
before the BIA, and so failed to exhaust the issue as required by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(d)(1). This court thus lacks jurisdiction to consider those arguments.
See Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 319 (5th Cir. 2009) (holding that the
§ 1252(d)(1) exhaustion requirement is jurisdictional).
The petition for review is DENIED.
3