Arteaga v. Garland ( 2023 )

Case: 20-60620 Document: 00516596667 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/04/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
January 4, 2023
No. 20-60620
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Jimmy Esau Arteaga,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A074 294 159
Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Jimmy Esau Arteaga, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions this
court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
affirming an order of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his applications for
cancellation of removal and withholding of removal. He argues that the IJ
erred by finding that he was not credible regarding his assets and income and
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 20-60620 Document: 00516596667 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/04/2023
No. 20-60620
by concluding that he had not made the requisite hardship showing. We lack
jurisdiction to consider these arguments. Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614,
1621-22, 1627 (2022); Castillo-Gutierrez v. Garland, 43 F.4th 477, 481 (5th
Cir. 2022).
Arteaga also argues that the IJ misapplied the law by reasoning that his
parents could help support Arteaga’s daughters if he is removed to El
Salvador because his parents have no legal obligation to provide such support.
To the extent that Arteaga’s argument implicates a question of law, over
which this court retains jurisdiction, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), Arteaga failed
to exhaust the issue before the BIA. We therefore lack jurisdiction to
consider this argument. See Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 314, 318-19 (5th Cir.
2009).
We also lack jurisdiction to consider Arteaga’s unexhausted argument
that the IJ misapplied the law for determining a particular social group by
using the framework set forth in In re A-M-E & J-G-U-, 241 I & N. Dec. 69,
69 (BIA 2007). See Omari, 562 F.3d at 318-19.
Finally, to the extent that Arteaga challenges the denial of his claim
under the Convention Against Torture, the BIA concluded that Arteaga
waived this claim. Arteaga did not challenge the BIA’s conclusion before the
BIA, and so we lack jurisdiction over this claim, too. See Omari, 562 F.3d at
318-19.
Consequently, the petition for review is DISMISSED.
2