Torres-Riasco v. Gonzales

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT March 3, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60971
Summary Calendar
EVER TORRES-RIASCO,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
--------------------
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A78 550 223
--------------------
Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ever Torres-Riasco petitions this court for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming the
Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for
cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). Torres-
Riasco challenges the IJ’s finding that he failed to meet any of
the three requirements for cancellation of removal. This court
reviews only the BIA’s decision except to the extent that 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 03-60971
-2-
IJ’s decision influenced the decision of the BIA. See Beltran-
Resendez v. INS, 207 F.3d 284, 286 (5th Cir. 2000); Mikhael v.
INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, because the
BIA’s decision rested solely upon the hardship requirement, the
other requirements for cancellation of removal are not at issue.
Because this case involves the granting of relief under
8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b), the jurisdictional bar of 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) is implicated. See Garcia-Melendez v.
Ashcroft, 351 F.3d 657, 661 (5th Cir. 2003). The jurisdiction-
stripping provision eliminates jurisdiction over those decisions
that involve the exercise of discretion. Mireles-Valdez v.
Ashcroft, 349 F.3d 213, 216 (5th Cir. 2003). The IJ’s
determination that Torres-Riasco’s spouse and child would not
suffer an “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” if Torres-
Riasco were removed to Colombia involved the exercise of
discretion. Rueda v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 831, 831 (5th Cir.
2004). Therefore, this court lacks jurisdiction to review the
IJ’s determination on hardship. The respondent’s motion to
dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction is GRANTED, and
Torres-Riasco’s petition is DISMISSED.