Lopez-Agustin v. Garland ( 2022 )

Case: 20-60545 Document: 00516349323 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/08/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 8, 2022
No. 20-60545
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Arturo Eduardo Lopez-Agustin,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A206 239 182
Before King, Costa, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Arturo Eduardo Lopez-Agustin, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
(BIA) dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his
application for cancellation of removal. Lopez-Agustin contends that the IJ
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-60545 Document: 00516349323 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/08/2022
No. 20-60545
erred in determining that he failed to show that his removal would cause
exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his children.
When the BIA affirms the IJ without opinion, as it did here, we review
the IJ’s decision. See Moin v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 415, 418 (5th Cir. 2003).
Factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence, and legal
determinations are reviewed de novo. Guerrero Trejo v. Garland, 3 F.4th 760,
774 (5th Cir. 2021). Whether we have jurisdiction is also reviewed de novo.
Nehme v. I.N.S., 252 F.3d 415, 420 (5th Cir. 2001).
The Government urges that Lopez-Agustin failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies as to his arguments related to non-economic
hardship. However, Lopez raised before the BIA other issues, including his
children’s educational opportunities and gang violence in Guatemala. Thus,
Lopez-Agustin has exhausted his administrative remedies. See Carranza-De
Salinas v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 200, 206 (5th Cir. 2007) (holding that an issue
can be adequately exhausted when raised before the BIA “in a less developed
form”).
The consequences facing Lopez-Agustin’s children if he were
removed are not “substantially beyond the hardship usually associated with
a parent’s removal.” Guerrero Trejo, 3 F.4th at 775. Furthermore, despite
his arguments to the contrary, the IJ acknowledged all of Lopez-Agustin’s
children and acknowledged more than just economic factors in determining
the hardship question.
The record does not compel a finding that his children would suffer
exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if he were removed; thus,
substantial evidence supports the determination that Lopez-Agustin was
ineligible for cancellation of removal. See id. at 774.
2
Case: 20-60545 Document: 00516349323 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/08/2022
No. 20-60545
Accordingly, the petition for review is DENIED and the
Government’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is DENIED as
moot.
3