Court Description: [Per Curiam - Before Colloton, Benton, and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Petition for Review - Immigration. The court lacks jurisdiction to consider petitioner's claim that the BIA erred in determining his removal would not result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his children; argument the BIA applied the wrong standard in reviewing the IJ's decision is not supported by the record; the court lacks jurisdiction to consider an attack on the BIA's determination that the evidence failed to satisfy the hardship requirement.
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 22-2943 ___________________________ Jesus Eduardo Lopez-Cardona Petitioner v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States Respondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: March 6, 2023 Filed: March 9, 2023 [Unpublished] ____________ Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Mexican citizen Jesus Eduardo Lopez-Cardona petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2), this court dismisses the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The BIA dismissed Lopez-Cardona’s appeal from the decision of an immigration judge (IJ) denying him cancellation of removal. This court lacks jurisdiction to review the discretionary decision to deny cancellation of removal, but retains jurisdiction to review constitutional claims and questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(B), (D). Lopez-Cardona first contends this court has jurisdiction to consider the BIA’s determination that his removal from the United States would not result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his children because it is a mixed question of law and fact. The argument is foreclosed by this court’s precedent. See Gonzalez-Rivas v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1129, 1132 (8th Cir. 2022). Lopez-Cardona’s second argument, that the BIA applied an incorrect legal standard in reviewing the IJ’s decision, is unsupported by the record and fails to raise a colorable claim. See Saleheen v. Holder, 618 F.3d 957, 961 (8th Cir. 2010) (on petition for review of denial of cancellation of removal, claim that is insubstantial, frivolous, or made solely for purpose of obtaining jurisdiction is not colorable claim this court may review). This court also lacks jurisdiction to review Lopez-Cardona’s argument that the BIA failed to fully account for, correctly interpret, or give due weight to certain evidence. See Nunez-Portillo v. Holder, 763 F.3d 974, 977 (8th Cir. 2014) (court has no jurisdiction to consider attack on BIA’s determination that evidence failed to satisfy hardship requirement). The petition is dismissed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -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.
