Jaime Fernando Lafaurie Carbonell v. U.S. Atty. ( 2008 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MARCH 27, 2008
THOMAS K. KAHN
No. 07-11494
CLERK
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
BIA No. A98-317-855
JAIME FERNANDO LAFAURIE-CARBONELL,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
No. 07-11495
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
BIA No. A98-317-856
HENY ALIA PAUWELS-CAMPOS
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
No. 07-13425
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
BIA No. A98-317-855
JAIME FERNANDO LAFAURIE-CARBONELL,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
No. 07-13426
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
BIA No. A98-317-856
HENY ALIA PAUWELS-CAMPOS,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petitions for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
_________________________
(March 27, 2008)
Before BIRCH, DUBINA and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Jamie Fernando Lafaurie Carbonell (“Carbonell”) and his wife, Heny Alia
Pauwels-Campos (“Pauwels”) (collectively referred to as “Petitioners”), seek
review of: (1) the Board of Immigration Appeal’s (“BIA”) decision affirming the
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their requests for cancellation of removal
under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 240A(b), 8 U.S.C. §
1229b(b); and (2) the BIA’s denial of their motion to reconsider the BIA’s prior
denial of their appeal and to reopen and remand the removal proceedings.1
Petitioners argue that the BIA’s denial of the Attorney General’s
discretionary determination that the circumstances that their two U.S. citizen
children would face if they were forced to relocate to Columbia did not merit a
1
The Petitioners originally filed four separate individual petitions for review which have
been consolidated as one appeal.
3
showing of “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” as required by §
240A(b)(1)(D) of the INA; 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1)(D) was erroneous. We have
previously held, however, that the BIA’s determination as to whether an individual
has demonstrated an “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” for purposes of
cancellation of removal is a purely discretionary decision that is not subject to
judicial review. Martinez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1219, 1222 (11th Cir.
2006); Gonzalez-Oropeza v. U.S. Att’y. Gen., 321 F.3d 1331, 1333 (11th Cir.
2003).2
We also find no merit to Petitioners’ arguments regarding the BIA’s denial
of their motion to reconsider and to reopen as they merely reiterate Petitioners’
prior concerns with the BIA’s discretionary determination on their requests for
cancellation of removal.
PETITIONS 07-11494 and 07-11495 are DISMISSED and PETITIONS 07-
13425 and 07-13426 are DENIED.
2
Although we would have jurisdiction if Petitioners’ appeal raised either a constitutional
claim or a question of law, neither of those questions are presented here.
4