Gaspar Marcos-Cardona v. Loretta Lynch, No. 14-60605 (5th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-60605 Document: 00513213066 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/30/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit No. 14-60605 Summary Calendar FILED September 30, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk GASPAR BONIFACIO MARCOS-CARDONA, also known as Angel CardonaRios, Petitioner v. LORETTA LYNCH, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A200 967 830 Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Gaspar Bonifacio Marcos-Cardona petitions this court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) decision dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) discretionary denial of cancellation of removal. He argues that this court has jurisdiction because he raises questions of law. Marcos-Cardona contends that the BIA and IJ failed to aggregate the hardship 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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: 14-60605 Document: 00513213066 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/30/2015 No. 14-60605 factors he presented, which resulted in a violation of his due process rights and the right to present evidence. He also argues that the IJ and BIA failed to consider the impact of removal on his children’s education. In addition, Marcos-Cardona contends that his son’s speech impediment should have been given more consideration because his testimony in support of the speech impediment was credible. Finally, he argues that the IJ and BIA failed to render an individualized hardship determination as to each child. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), no court shall have jurisdiction to review any judgment relating to requests for relief under § 1229b. This provision does not, however, preclude review of constitutional claims or questions of law. § 1252(a)(2)(D); see Wilmore, v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 524, 526 (5th Cir. 2006). But the alien’s framing of an issue is not dispositive. We 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); DelgadoReynua v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 596, 599-600 (5th Cir. 2006). That is the case here. Because Marcos-Cardona’s arguments are nothing more than a disagreement with the weighing of the factors underlying the discretionary decision whether he merited cancellation of removal, we lack jurisdiction. See Rueda v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 831, 831 (5th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, the petition is JURISDICTION. 2 DISMISSED FOR LACK OF
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.
