Enriquez-Acuapa v. Garland ( 2022 )

Case: 20-60798 Document: 00516269062 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/06/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 6, 2022
No. 20-60798
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
David Enriquez-Acuapa,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A205 006 035
Before Southwick, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
David Enriquez-Acuapa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) decision dismissing his
appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for cancellation
of removal. Enriquez-Acuapa argues that the BIA failed to address his
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-60798 Document: 00516269062 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/06/2022
No. 20-60798
argument regarding whether the best interests of the child must be the
primary factor considered in determining whether a petitioner has
demonstrated an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a minor
relative. Specifically, he claims that pursuant to Article 3 of the Convention
on the Rights of the Child, the best interests of the child must be considered
in determining whether a petitioner is entitled to cancellation of removal and
that his position is supported by language in two Supreme Court cases.
Despite Enriquez-Acuapa’s assertion to the contrary, the BIA
considered and rejected his arguments in finding that unratified treaties and
customary international law cannot create remedies beyond those provided
by Congress and that it lacked jurisdiction to the extent that he argued that
the Convention on the Rights of the Child affected the validity of the
Immigration and Nationality Act. Moreover, the Convention on the Rights
of the Child has not been ratified by the United States and therefore does not
create a binding obligation. See Martinez-Lopez v. Gonzales, 454 F.3d 500, 502
(5th Cir. 2006). Finally, because Enriquez-Acuapa does not challenge the
determination that he failed to demonstrate an undue hardship to his
qualifying relatives, he has abandoned any challenge to that determination.
See Chambers v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008). Enriquez-
Acuapa does not show that the evidence compels a contrary result. See
Guerrero Trejo v. Garland, 3 F.4th 760, 744 (5th Cir. 2021).
The petition for review is DENIED.
2