eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2023-03

Niang v. Garland ( 2023 )


Menu:
 
  • Case: 21-60737     Document: 00516697393         Page: 1     Date Filed: 03/31/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 21-60737
Summary Calendar                            FILED
____________                          March 31, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
Arame Niang,                                                             Clerk
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
______________________________
Petitions for Review of Orders of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A093 426 803
______________________________
Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Arame Niang, a native and citizen of Senegal, petitions for review of
orders by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the denial of her
application for cancellation of removal and denying her motion to reconsider.
_____________________
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-60737      Document: 00516697393           Page: 2   Date Filed: 03/31/2023
No. 21-60737
We review de novo whether we have jurisdiction over a petition for
review. Hadwani v. Gonzales,
    445 F.3d 798
    , 800 (5th Cir. 2006). Niang
argues that the BIA erred by concluding that she had not made the requisite
hardship showing and denying her request for cancellation of removal.
However, we lack jurisdiction to consider her arguments. See Patel v.
Garland,
    142 S. Ct. 1614
    , 1622 (2022); Castillo-Gutierrez v. Garland,
    43 F.4th 477
    , 481 (5th Cir. 2022). We similarly lack jurisdiction to review the denial
of her motion to reconsider insofar as she argues that she made the requisite
hardship showing. See Assaad v. Ashcroft,
    378 F.3d 471
    , 475 (5th Cir. 2004).
While Niang claims that the BIA committed legal error by
impermissibly considering her daughter’s age and by overlooking the fact
that no female genital mutilation cases are prosecuted in Senegal despite it
being illegal, 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); see also Castillo-Gutierrez, 43 F.4th at 481.
Moreover, her assertion that the BIA applied an incorrect legal standard by
treating its decision in Matter of Recinas,
    23 I. & N. Dec. 467
    , 467 (BIA 2002),
as a threshold that a petitioner must meet in order to demonstrate an undue
and extremely unusual hardship is unavailing. The BIA merely compared the
hardship alleged by Niang to that demonstrated by the petitioner in Recinas
after outlining the specific reasons for agreeing with the immigration judge’s
hardship determination. See Delgado–Reynua v. Gonzales,
    450 F.3d 596
    , 599-
600 (5th Cir. 2006).
Accordingly, Niang’s petitions for review are DISMISSED.
2