Jesus Eduardo Lopez-Cardona v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 22-2943
___________________________
Jesus Eduardo Lopez-Cardona
Petitioner
v.
Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States
Respondent
____________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
____________
Submitted: March 6, 2023
Filed: March 9, 2023
[Unpublished]
____________
Before COLLOTON, BENTON, and GRASZ, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Mexican citizen Jesus Eduardo Lopez-Cardona petitions for review of an
order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2), this court dismisses the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The BIA dismissed Lopez-Cardona’s appeal from the decision of an
immigration judge (IJ) denying him cancellation of removal. This court lacks

-- 1 of 2 --

-2-
jurisdiction to review the discretionary decision to deny cancellation of removal, but
retains jurisdiction to review constitutional claims and questions of law. See 8
U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(B), (D).
Lopez-Cardona first contends this court has jurisdiction to consider the BIA’s
determination that his removal from the United States would not result in exceptional
and extremely unusual hardship to his children because it is a mixed question of law
and fact. The argument is foreclosed by this court’s precedent. See Gonzalez-Rivas
v. Garland, 53 F.4th 1129, 1132 (8th Cir. 2022). Lopez-Cardona’s second argument,
that the BIA applied an incorrect legal standard in reviewing the IJ’s decision, is
unsupported by the record and fails to raise a colorable claim. See Saleheen v.
Holder, 618 F.3d 957, 961 (8th Cir. 2010) (on petition for review of denial of
cancellation of removal, claim that is insubstantial, frivolous, or made solely for
purpose of obtaining jurisdiction is not colorable claim this court may review). This
court also lacks jurisdiction to review Lopez-Cardona’s argument that the BIA failed
to fully account for, correctly interpret, or give due weight to certain evidence. See
Nunez-Portillo v. Holder, 763 F.3d 974, 977 (8th Cir. 2014) (court has no
jurisdiction to consider attack on BIA’s determination that evidence failed to satisfy
hardship requirement).
The petition is dismissed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________

-- 2 of 2 --