USCA11 Case: 20-14613 Date Filed: 09/30/2021 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-14613
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A206-860-757
DIEGO JAVIER CINTORA-CORONA,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(September 30, 2021)
Before JILL PRYOR, LUCK, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 20-14613 Date Filed: 09/30/2021 Page: 2 of 4
Diego Cintora-Corona seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’
(“BIA”) final order adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial
of his application for cancellation of removal pursuant to Immigration and
Nationality Act (“INA”) § 240A(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). He argues that the
BIA and IJ improperly weighed the facts in finding that (1) his United States
citizen child would not experience exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if
he were removed to Mexico and (2) alternatively, his claim should be denied as a
matter of discretion.
We review the BIA’s decision as the final agency decision, and we review
the IJ’s decision as well to the extent that the BIA expressly adopts or agrees with
it. Gonzalez v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
820 F.3d 399, 403 (11th Cir. 2016). We review
whether we have subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Blanc v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
996
F.3d 1274, 1277 (11th Cir. 2021).
Under the discretionary decision jurisdictional bar, we lack jurisdiction to
review “any judgment regarding the granting of” an application for cancellation of
removal. INA § 242(a)(2)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); see Patel v. U.S.
Att’y Gen.,
971 F.3d 1258, 1272 (11th Cir. 2020) (en banc), cert. granted, (U.S.
June 28, 2021) (No. 20-979). Notwithstanding this jurisdictional bar, however, we
retain jurisdiction to consider constitutional claims and questions of law. INA
§ 242(a)(2)(D), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). But “a party may not dress up a claim
2
USCA11 Case: 20-14613 Date Filed: 09/30/2021 Page: 3 of 4
with legal or constitutional clothing to invoke our jurisdiction.” Patel, 971 F.3d at
1272. “[A] garden-variety abuse of discretion” argument that the agency failed to
properly weigh the facts the applicant presented does not amount to a legal
question. Alvarez-Acosta v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
524 F.3d 1191, 1196-97 (11th Cir.
2008).
The Attorney General has the discretion to cancel the removal of certain
non-permanent resident aliens who establish that: (1) they have been continuously
physically present in the United States for at least 10 years; (2) they have been
“person[s] of good moral character” while present in the United States; (3) they
have not been convicted of any specified criminal offenses; and (4) their “removal
would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a qualifying
relative who is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. INA § 240A(b)(1), 8
U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1).
We lack jurisdiction over Cintora-Corona’s petition for review because he
is challenging a judgment denying his application for cancellation of removal and
he does not raise a constitutional claim or question of law. Rather, he merely
argues that the BIA and IJ wrongly weighed the factors regarding hardship and
discretion. His passing assertion that the IJ incorrectly applied the law in
determining that he would not be entitled to a favorable exercise of discretion
essentially challenges the weight given to the various factors, so it is a
3
USCA11 Case: 20-14613 Date Filed: 09/30/2021 Page: 4 of 4
“garden-variety abuse of discretion” argument over which we have no jurisdiction.
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition.
PETITION DISMISSED.
4
