Alvarez, et al v. Gonzales

Filing 920060720

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

F I L E D
July 20, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk

No. 04-61169 Summary Calendar CARLOS JOSUE ALVAREZ; IVONNE ESPINOZA FLORES, Petitioners, versus ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. -------------------Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA Nos. A78 568 295 A78 568 296 -------------------Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Ivonne Espinoza-Flores (Espinoza), a native and citizen of Mexico, and Carlos Josue-Alvarez (Josue), Espinoza's spouse and a native and citizen of Guatemala appeal the reversal by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of an immigration judge's grant of cancellation of removal. The BIA denied Espinoza's and Josue's

applications for cancellation of removal because they had not shown that their removal would result in "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to their children. See 8 U.S.C.

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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.

*

No. 04-61169 -2§ 1229b(b). This court lacks jurisdiction to review the Attorney

General's discretionary decision regarding cancellation of removal. See Rueda v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 831, 831 (5th Cir. The

2004); 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). petition for review is dismissed. Espinoza and Josue argue that the BIA engaged in impermissible fact-finding in reaching its decision. They

vaguely state that the BIA should not have assumed the existence of evidence to their detriment "such as a visa to Mexico or Guatemala." The REAL ID Act authorizes courts to consider "constitutional claims or questions of law" raised in a petition for review. See § 1252(a)(2)(D). To the extent that the claim

raises a question of law, this court has jurisdiction to review it. See id. Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i), the BIA may "not engage in de novo review of findings of fact determined by an immigration judge." Id. The record does not reflect, however,

that the BIA made factual findings different from those of the IJ and Espinoza and Josue fail to clearly identify such facts. Accordingly, the petition for review is denied. DISMISSED IN PART FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION; DENIED IN PART.