Hernandez Roman v. Garland, No. 20-60844 (5th Cir. 2022)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 20-60844 Document: 00516315180 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/11/2022 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 20-60844 Summary Calendar May 11, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Ramon Hernandez Roman, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A205 471 365 Before Barksdale, Costa, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Ramon Hernandez Roman, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Roman contends the BIA failed to address key items of medical evidence, in * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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: 20-60844 Document: 00516315180 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/11/2022 No. 20-60844 contravention of its precedent, in concluding he failed to demonstrate his removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relatives. This challenge, however, is unexhausted. Therefore, our court lacks jurisdiction to address it. See Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452–53 (5th Cir. 2001) (noting “alien fails to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to an issue when the issue is not raised in the first instance before the BIA—either on direct appeal or in a motion to reopen”). Additionally, because Roman does not address the BIA’s conclusion that he failed to demonstrate an undue hardship to his qualifying relatives, he has abandoned any such challenge. See Chambers v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008) (holding challenge waived for failure to brief). DISMISSED IN PART; DENIED IN PART. 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.