Martha Valdez-Gomez v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 571 F. App'x 317 ( 2014 )

Case: 13-60610 Document: 00512658217 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/10/2014
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 13-60610 FILED
Summary Calendar June 10, 2014
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
MARTHA VALDEZ-GOMEZ,
Petitioner
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A200 237 571
Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Martha Valdez-Gomez, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks a petition
for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming
the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of her application for cancellation of
removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. She asserts that the BIA abused its
discretion in agreeing with the IJ’s hardship determination regarding the
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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: 13-60610 Document: 00512658217 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/10/2014
No. 13-60610
effect that her removal would have on her children who are United States
citizens.
We generally review only the BIA’s decision except to the extent that the
IJ’s decision influences the BIA. Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir.
2007). With respect to the determination that Gomez-Valdez failed to
demonstrate that her children would suffer an “exceptional and extremely
unusual hardship” as required under § 1229b(b)(1), Gomez-Valdez does not
raise any constitutional issues or purely legal questions, and her argument
amounts to little more than a disagreement with the weighing and
consideration of the relevant factors by the IJ and the BIA; therefore, we lack
jurisdiction to review this purely discretionary decision. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Sung v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 372, 377 (5th Cir. 2007); Bravo v.
Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 590, 593 (5th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we DISMISS Valdez-
Gomez’s petition for review for WANT OF JURISDICTION.
2