Juana Martinez-Bulnes v. William Barr, U. S. Atty

Case: 19-60491 Document: 00515622203 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/02/2020
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
November 2, 2020
No. 19-60491 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Juana Orestila Martinez-Bulnes, also known as Juana
Martinez, also known as Luz Delia Diaz-Cartagena, also known
as Luz Delia Diaz, also known as Luz Diaz Bodden, also known as
Juana O. Martinez, also known as Juana Orestila Bulnes-
Martinez, also known as Juana Orestila Martinez,
Petitioner,
versus
William P. Barr, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A200 550 125
Before Higginbotham, Jones, and Costa, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 19-60491 Document: 00515622203 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/02/2020
No. 19-60491
Juana Orestila Martinez-Bulnes is a native and citizen of Honduras
who petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) dismissing her appeal from an order of the Immigration Judge
(IJ) concluding that she was ineligible for cancellation of removal and
ordering her removed. Through counsel, she primarily argues that the IJ
erred in determining that she was ineligible for cancellation of removal based
on her failure to maintain the requisite continuous presence in the United
States, and she complains that the BIA erred when it affirmed the IJ’s denial
of relief on discretionary hardship grounds without addressing the IJ’s
alternative finding regarding presence, which she urges was legally erroneous
and negatively affected the hardship determination.
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1), an alien is eligible for cancellation of
removal if she shows, among other things, that she maintained a continuous
presence in the United States for the preceding 10 years and that her removal
will cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” for, inter alia, her
United States citizen spouse or child. “[N]o court shall have jurisdiction to
review—(i) any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section . . .
1229b.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). However, this court retains jurisdiction
to review constitutional claims and questions of law raised in a petition for
review of the denial of § 1229b relief. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Sung v. Keisler,
505 F.3d 372, 377 (5th Cir. 2007).
Martinez-Bulnes’s request for cancellation of removal was ultimately
denied on the sole ground that she failed to demonstrate the requisite
exceptional hardship. She briefs no legal or constitutional claims challenging
that determination. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir.
2003). Her attempt to circumvent the jurisdictional bar by raising a legal
challenge to the unrelated, alternative finding by the IJ that she also failed to
show the requisite continuous presence is unavailing. See § 1229b(b)(1).
Because the sole basis for the BIA’s dismissal of the appeal was the
2
Case: 19-60491 Document: 00515622203 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/02/2020
No. 19-60491
discretionary determination that Martinez-Bulnes failed to demonstrate the
requisite extraordinary hardship and because she raises no claim of legal or
constitutional error in connection with that determination, her petition for
review must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See Rueda v. Ashcroft, 380
F.3d 831, 831 (5th Cir. 2004).
DISMISSED.
3