Rodriguez Hernandez v. Garland ( 2021 )


Menu:
  • Case: 20-60260     Document: 00516081556         Page: 1     Date Filed: 11/04/2021
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Fifth Circuit                              United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    No. 20-60260                        November 4, 2021
    Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    Diego Adrian Rodriguez Hernandez, also known as Diego
    Rodriguez,
    Petitioner,
    versus
    Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    BIA No. A044 360 148
    Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
    Per Curiam:*
    Diego Adrian Rodriguez Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico,
    petitions for review of an order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
    *
    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    opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-60260      Document: 00516081556          Page: 2    Date Filed: 11/04/2021
    No. 20-60260
    denying his motion for reconsideration after concluding that he did not
    warrant a favorable exercise of its discretion to cancel removal.
    We review the question of whether we have jurisdiction de novo.
    Hadwani v. Gonzales, 
    445 F.3d 798
    , 800 (5th Cir. 2006). Although we
    generally lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of an application
    for cancellation of removal, we retain jurisdiction to review constitutional
    claims or questions of law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) & (a)(2)(D). However,
    a petitioner cannot manufacture jurisdiction by petitioning for review of a
    motion to reopen or reconsider when we would lack jurisdiction to review a
    direct petition. Assaad v. Ashcroft, 
    378 F.3d 471
    , 475 (5th Cir. 2004).
    Rodriguez Hernandez argues that the BIA failed to adhere to binding
    precedent when it determined that his criminal history outweighed the
    factors in favor of granting cancellation of removal, but an assertion that the
    BIA failed to consider or put insufficient emphasis on particular factors
    “merely asks this Court to replace the [BIA’s] evaluation of the evidence
    with a new outcome, which falls squarely within the jurisdictional bar of 8
    U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B).” Sattani v. Holder, 
    749 F.3d 368
    , 372 (5th Cir.
    2014), abrogated in part on other grounds by Guerrero Trejo v. Garland, 
    3 F.4th 760
    , 768-73 (5th Cir. 2021).       Because Rodriguez Hernandez has not
    presented a legal or constitutional claim, we lack jurisdiction to review the
    denial of his motion for reconsideration. See Assaad, 
    378 F.3d at 475
    .
    Accordingly, the petition for review is DISMISSED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-60260

Filed Date: 11/4/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2021