Ramos-Alanis v. Garland ( 2023 )

Case: 22-60326 Document: 00516655491 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/24/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-60326
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ February 24, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
Juan Alberto Ramos-Alanis, Clerk
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
______________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A208 698 696
______________________________
Before Barksdale, Higginson, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Juan Alberto Ramos-Alanis, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissing his appeal
from an order of the Immigration Judge denying his applications for
cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. We lack jurisdiction to
consider each of Ramos’ claims.
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60326 Document: 00516655491 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/24/2023
No. 22-60326
First, he challenges the BIA’s finding his removal would not cause the
requisite exceptional and unusual hardship for his children. The Supreme
Court, however, has “[made it] clear that the BIA’s determination that a
citizen would face exceptional and extremely unusual hardship is an
authoritative decision . . . beyond our review”. Castillo-Gutierrez v. Garland,
43 F.4th 477, 481 (5th Cir. 2022).
Regarding his voluntary-departure claim, he contends he established
his intent to depart the United States and the requisite good moral character.
Our court lacks jurisdiction to consider factual challenges with respect to the
denial of voluntary departure. 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f); see Sattani v. Holder, 749
F.3d 368, 373 (5th Cir. 2014) (where petitioner “presents no constitutional
question or question of law . . . we lack jurisdiction to consider” challenge to
denial of voluntary departure).
Finally, to the extent Ramos appears to assert his notice to appear was
defective (he makes this assertion in the factual section of his opening brief,
but does not expand on it in his argument section), that claim was not
presented to the BIA; therefore, it is unexhausted. E.g., Lopez-Dubon v.
Holder, 609 F.3d 642, 644 (5th Cir. 2010) (“An alien’s failure to exhaust
administrative remedies is a jurisdictional bar to our consideration of an
issue.”).
DISMISSED.
2