Mateo-Juan v. Garland

Case: 20-60614 Document: 00516276313 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/12/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
April 12, 2022
No. 20-60614
Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Esaquio Mateo-Juan,
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A201 942 446
Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Esaquio Mateo-Juan, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s (BIA) decision dismissing his
appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) order denying his application for
cancellation of removal. We have previously granted summary denial of the
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 20-60614 Document: 00516276313 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/12/2022
No. 20-60614
petition, in part, as to his claim challenging the IJ’s denial of a continuance.
He has also challenged the BIA’s factual findings and legal conclusions,
arguing that the BIA did not consider and appropriately weigh relevant
factors in its determination that he failed to demonstrate that his removal
would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his children. To
the extent that he argues that the BIA failed to consider country conditions
in Guatemala in determining that his removal would not cause exceptional
and extremely unusual hardship to his children, he presented no argument
on country conditions to the BIA, and the argument is therefore unexhausted.
See Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir. 2001).
Despite Mateo-Juan’s assertions to the contrary, the BIA considered
his wife’s medical conditions and the family’s financial situation. The BIA
found that Mateo-Juan failed to present sufficient evidence showing that his
wife’s medical conditions were unmanaged, that she was unable to find some
type of work, and that his family would not be able to find a place to live if he
was removed. He points to no evidence that would compel a contrary
conclusion. See Guerrero Trejo, 3 F.4th at 774-75.
Moreover, Mateo-Juan does not establish that the consequences of his
removal are “‘substantially beyond the ordinary hardship that would be
expected when a close family member leaves this country.’” Guerrero Trejo
v. Garland, 3 F.4th 760, 775 (5th Cir. 2021) (quoting In re Monreal-Aguinaga,
23 I & N. Dec. 56, 62 (BIA 2001). Thus, substantial evidence supports the
determination that Mateo-Juan was ineligible for cancellation of removal. See
Guerrero Trejo, 3 F.4th at 775.
Accordingly, the petition for review is DISMISSED in part and
DENIED in part. The Government’s motion to dismiss is also DENIED.
2