Baltazar Carillo-Romero v. Jefferson Sessions, III , 712 F. App'x 449 ( 2018 )

Case: 17-60240 Document: 00514350494 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/16/2018
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 17-60240 February 16, 2018
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
BALTAZAR CARILLO-ROMERO, also known as Baltazar Carillo Romero,
Petitioner
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A205 212 492
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Baltazar Carillo-Romero, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions this
court for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) decision dismissing
his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of cancellation of removal
under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. He contends that the BIA erred in concluding that he
failed to establish that his United States citizen daughter would suffer
exceptional and extremely unusual hardship as a result of his removal to
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Case: 17-60240 Document: 00514350494 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/16/2018
No. 17-60240
Mexico. Specifically, Carillo-Romero argues that the BIA abused its discretion
by failing to consider his lack of ties to Mexico given the length of his residency
in the United States. He also argues that the BIA violated his procedural due
process rights by failing to consider all of his testimony in the aggregate.
We are statutorily barred from reviewing the BIA’s purely discretionary
denial of cancellation of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Sattani v. Holder,
749 F.3d 368, 372 (5th Cir. 2014). This jurisdiction-stripping provision does
not preclude review of constitutional claims or questions of law.
§ 1252(a)(2)(D); Sattani, 749 F.3d at 372. However, we look past an alien’s
framing of an issue and will decline to consider “an abuse of discretion
argument cloaked in constitutional garb.” Hadwani v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 798,
801 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks, citation, and brackets omitted).
Carillo-Romero’s claim that the BIA failed to properly consider and
cumulatively assess all of the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship
factors is nothing more than a disagreement with the BIA’s weighing of those
factors. Further, the IJ’s and BIA’s decisions reflect that they meaningfully
considered all of the relevant hardship factors and evidence, individually and
cumulatively. Because Carillo-Romero challenges the consideration and
weighing of the evidence, we lack jurisdiction over his claim that the BIA erred
in dismissing his appeal of the IJ’s denial of his application for cancellation of
removal. See Sattani, 749 F.3d at 372.
Accordingly, Carillo-Romero’s petition for review is DISMISSED for lack
of jurisdiction.
2