Carlos Gonzalez-Ruiz v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing 920100429

Case: 09-60614

Document: 00511095561

Page: 1

Date Filed: 04/29/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
No. 09-60614 Summary Calendar April 29, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

CARLOS DAVID GONZALEZ-RUIZ, Petitioner v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A094 792 066

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Carlos David Gonzalez-Ruiz (Gonzalez) petitions this court for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) vacating the Immigration Judge's (IJ) grant of his application for discretionary relief in the form of cancellation of removal under § 240A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). Gonzalez asserts that the BIA erred in

reversing the IJ's decision because the BIA failed to engage in a substantive review of the facts as the IJ had done. He also maintains, however, that the BIA
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .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.
*

Case: 09-60614

Document: 00511095561 Page: 2 No. 09-60614

Date Filed: 04/29/2010

reviewed the facts de novo but failed to consider many positive factors that weighed in favor of granting relief. To the extent that Gonzalez challenges the BIA's discretionary denial of relief, we lack jurisdiction to consider this contention. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(2)(B); Delgado-Reynua v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 596, 599-600 (5th Cir. 2006). Gonzalez attempts to circumvent this jurisdictional limitation by arguing that his claim concerning the BIA's method of analysis presents a legal question. This argument is unavailing. See Delgado-Reynua, 450 F.3d at 599-600; see also Sung v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 372, 377 (5th Cir. 2007) (holding that the court lacked jurisdiction over a claim that the agency failed to consider all relevant factors in denying cancellation of removal). DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. Gonzalez's petition for review is thus

2