Case: 17-10133 Date Filed: 08/14/2017 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-10133
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A201-214-085
ORLANDO CAMACHO-MONTOYA,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(August 14, 2017)
Before MARCUS, JORDAN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Orlando Camacho-Montoya (“Camacho”) seeks review of an order of the
Board of Immigration Appeal (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal of the Immigration
Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for cancellation of removal. On
Case: 17-10133 Date Filed: 08/14/2017 Page: 2 of 3
appeal, Camacho argues that: (1) the IJ erred in concluding that he failed to
establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his U.S. citizen children;
and (2) the IJ erred in its adverse credibility determination. After thorough review,
we affirm.
We have jurisdiction to determine whether we have subject matter
jurisdiction over a final order of removal. Alexis v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 431 F.3d
1291, 1293 (11th Cir. 2005).
The Attorney General may cancel the removal of a nonpermanent resident
alien who: (1) has continuous physical presence in the United States for ten years;
(2) is of good moral character; (3) has not committed one of a number of specified
offenses; and (4) shows that his citizen spouse, parent, or child will suffer
“exceptional and extremely unusual” hardship. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). We lack
jurisdiction to review certain discretionary decisions under the Immigration and
Nationality Act (“INA”), including the decision to deny an application for
cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Jimenez-Galicia v. U.S.
Att’y Gen., 690 F.3d 1207, 1209 (11th Cir. 2012) (stating that the “INA prevents
judicial review of the BIA’s discretionary judgments that grant or deny petitions
for cancellation of removal”). This statutory bar also precludes judicial review of
the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship determination.” Gonzalez-
Oropeza v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 321 F.3d 1331, 1333 (11th Cir. 2003).
2
Case: 17-10133 Date Filed: 08/14/2017 Page: 3 of 3
Notwithstanding the statutory bar, we retain jurisdiction to review colorable
constitutional claims or questions of law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). However, a
petitioner may not create jurisdiction simply by framing an abuse-of-discretion
argument in constitutional terms. See Arias v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 482 F.3d 1281,
1283-84 (11th Cir. 2007). And we have rejected attempts to frame “what is
essentially a challenge to the IJ’s assessment” of credibility as a question of law.
See Garcia v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 329 F.3d 1217, 1222 (11th Cir. 2003).
Here, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s order dismissing Camacho’s
appeal because the INA precludes judicial review of agency decisions to deny an
application for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).
Moreover, any attempt by Camacho to frame his arguments in constitutional or
purely legal terms does not restore jurisdiction because he is merely asking us to
conclude that the IJ’s findings were not supported by the record, which we may not
do in the face of a jurisdictional bar. See Garcia, 329 F.3d at 1222. Therefore, we
dismiss the petition.
DISMISSED.
3