Lopez-Galeaz v. Garland, No. 23-60057 (5th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 23-60057 Document: 00516857352 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/14/2023 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ____________ No. 23-60057 Summary Calendar ____________ United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED August 14, 2023 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Jose Raul Lopez-Galeaz, Petitioner, versus Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent. ______________________________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A077 620 182 ______________________________ Before Higginbotham, Stewart, and Southwick, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Jose Raul Lopez-Galeaz, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) upholding the immigration judge’s denial of cancellation of removal, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review the BIA’s decision and consider the immigration _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 23-60057 Document: 00516857352 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/14/2023 No. 23-60057 judge’s decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. See Santos-Alvarado v. Barr, 967 F.3d 428, 436 (5th Cir. 2020). We lack jurisdiction to review Lopez-Galeaz’s challenge to the hardship finding with regard to cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Castillo-Gutierrez v. Garland, 43 F.4th 477, 481 (5th Cir. 2022). Because the issue of hardship is dispositive in establishing his ineligibility for cancellation of removal, we do not reach his argument concerning continuous physical presence in the United States. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25 (1976). As to withholding of removal, the BIA upheld the immigration judge’s finding on nexus and alternatively deemed that the issue of nexus was waived because Lopez-Galeaz did not challenge it. An applicant’s failure to demonstrate nexus is dispositive for withholding of removal. See GonzalesVeliz v. Barr, 938 F.3d 219, 224 (5th Cir. 2019). Lopez-Galeaz does not contest the BIA’s waiver ruling here and therefore has waived any such challenge in this court. See Chambers v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008). The BIA’s waiver determination is a sufficient basis on which to deny the petition for review as to withholding of removal. See SantosAlvarado, 967 F.3d at 440 n.13. Accordingly, the petition for review is denied regarding withholding of removal. Lopez-Galeaz also does not dispute the BIA’s determination that he waived the issue of CAT relief in the BIA by failing to challenge it there. See Chambers, 520 F.3d at 448 n.1. Thus, the petition for review is also denied regarding CAT relief. For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DISMISSED in part for lack of jurisdiction and DENIED in all other respects. 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.
