Hornburg v. Gonzales

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
December 20, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-60548
Summary Calendar
JUANA HORNBURG,
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 128 445
--------------------
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Juana Medina Hornburg appeals the denial of her application
for cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. The
immigration judge (IJ) determined that Hornburg had not made the
requisite showing that her United States citizen daughter would
suffer “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.” See
§ 1229b(b)(1)(D). A single member of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s opinion, thereby making the IJ’s
decision the final agency determination. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 05-60548
-2-
(e)(4).
Where the BIA affirms the IJ decision without opinion, this
court reviews the IJ’s decision. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324
F.3d 830, 831-32 (5th Cir. 2003). To the extent that Hornburg
challenges the IJ’s discretionary determination that she had not
made the requisite showing under § 1229b(b)(1)(D), this court is
without jurisdiction to hear her petition. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (ii); Rueda v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 831, 831
(5th Cir. 2004).
Hornburg also challenges the BIA’s application of its
summary affirmance procedures to her case, arguing that the
procedure violated her due process rights and that her appeal did
not satisfy the requirements for employing that procedure
enumerated in § 1003.1(e)(4), (e)(6). This court has previously
held the BIA’s summary affirmance procedures constitutional.
Soadjede, 324 F.3d at 832-33. The IJ’s decision met the criteria
for summary affirmance pursuant to § 1003.1(e).
Accordingly, the petition is DISMISSED in part for lack of
jurisdiction and DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --