Case: 18-15240 Date Filed: 10/10/2019 Page: 1 of 6 ` [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 18-15240 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A216-027-460 EDUARDO BRIONES ALVAREZ, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (October 10, 2019) Before JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 18-15240 Date Filed: 10/10/2019 Page: 2 of 6 Eduardo Briones Alvarez seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision affirming the Immigration Judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal. In his petition, Alvarez asserts that the agency violated his due process rights by assigning substantial weight to a police report indicating that he had provided fraudulent identification documents to law enforcement. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, we lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s decision to grant or deny discretionary applications for cancellation of removal unless (as relevant here) the petitioner raises a genuine constitutional claim or question of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), (D). Because Alvarez failed to raise a colorable legal question or constitutional issue on appeal, we dismiss his petition for lack of jurisdiction. I Alvarez is a native and citizen of Mexico. He entered the United States in 2005 without inspection and has continuously remained in the country since. After several arrests and convictions for traffic violations, the Department of Homeland Security served Alvarez with a Notice to Appear, charging him as removable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) for being present in the United States without being admitted or paroled after inspection by an Immigration Officer. Alvarez admitted to the allegations in the Notice and conceded removability. He then applied for a cancellation of removal and voluntary departure, which the IJ 2 Case: 18-15240 Date Filed: 10/10/2019 Page: 3 of 6 denied (and the Board affirmed) on the basis that Alvarez had failed to establish good moral character under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)’s “catchall” provision. Alvarez now petitions for review of the Board’s final order. II We review our own subject matter jurisdiction de novo. Gonzalez-Oropeza v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 321 F.3d 1331, 1332 (11th Cir. 2003). We review the Board’s legal determinations de novo. Ayala v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 941, 947–48 (11th Cir. 2010). The Board’s decision is reviewed as the final agency decision, but we also review the IJ’s decision to the extent that the Board expressly adopts it. Id. When the Board explicitly agrees with the IJ’s findings, “we review the decisions of both the Board and the immigration judge as to those issues.” Id. at 948. The Attorney General has discretion to cancel the removal of a non- permanent resident alien if that alien (A) has been continuously physically present for not less than 10 years; (B) has shown good moral character during that period; (C) lacks certain criminal convictions; and (D) establishes that removal would cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a qualifying ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals