Liyun Shang v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 14-60385 (5th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-60385 Document: 00513005233 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/14/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 14-60385 Summary Calendar FILED April 14, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk LIYUN SHANG, Petitioner v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A074 840 724 Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Chinese national Liyun Shang petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) decision dismissing her appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) discretionary denial of cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. She argues that the BIA and IJ erroneously failed to consider and give appropriate weight to the hardship her United States citizen spouse would suffer if she is removed, the fact that she has been rehabilitated from 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. * Case: 14-60385 Document: 00513005233 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/14/2015 No. 14-60385 her sole prior conviction, and that she suffered abuse at the hands of her former spouse in China. The respondent moves to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Shang opposes the motion, recasting her arguments as legal errors. We are statutorily barred from reviewing the IJ’s and BIA’s purely discretionary denial of cancellation of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Sung v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 372, 377 (5th Cir. 2007). This jurisdiction-stripping provision does not preclude review of constitutional claims or questions of law. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Sung, 505 F.3d at 377. However, we look past an alien’s framing of an issue and will decline to consider an abuse of discretion argument cloaked in constitutional or legal garb. Hadwani v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 798, 801 (5th Cir. 2006); Delgado-Reynua v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 596, 599-600 (5th Cir. 2006). Because Shang’s arguments challenging the IJ’s and BIA’s assessment of the evidence and testimony are nothing more than a disagreement with their weighing of the factors underlying the discretionary decision whether she merited cancellation of removal, we lack jurisdiction over that challenge. See Sung, 505 F.3d at 377. Accordingly, the respondent’s motion is GRANTED, and the petition is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
