Norma Segovia v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Filing

Norma Segovia v. Eric Holder, Jr.

Doc. 0

Case: 09-60759

Document: 00511193127

Page: 1

Date Filed: 08/03/2010

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED
N o . 09-60759 S u m m a r y Calendar August 3, 2010 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

N O R M A SEGOVIA, P e titio n e r v. E R I C H. HOLDER, JR., U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, R espon dent

P e tit io n for Review of an Order of the B o a r d of Immigration Appeals B I A No. A073 933 513

B e fo r e JONES, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and WIENER, Circuit Judges. P E R CURIAM:* N o r m a Segovia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions this court for r e v ie w of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the im m ig r a t io n judge's (IJ) denial of her application for cancellation of removal. The IJ determined that Segovia had failed to show that her removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her family, as required for c a n c e lla t io n of removal. Segovia argues in this petition that the IJ cited to legal a u t h o r it y involving hardship factors that are not present in her situation.
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
*

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-60759

Document: 00511193127 Page: 2 No. 09-60759

Date Filed: 08/03/2010

W e lack jurisdiction to consider the BIA's discretionary determination that S e g o v ia failed to demonstrate exceptional and unusual hardship. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Sung v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 372, 377 (5th Cir. 2007); Rueda v. A s h c r o ft, 380 F.3d 831 (5th Cir. 2004). The jurisdiction-stripping provision of § 1252 does not preclude review of constitutional claims and questions of law. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Sung, 505 F.3d at 377. Segovia did not make any arguments in h e r brief raising a colorable constitutional claim or a question of law that we w o u ld have jurisdiction to review. Because we lack jurisdiction to review the fin a l order of removal, the petition for review is dismissed. A s h c r o ft, 388 F.3d 507, 515 (5th Cir. 2004). D IS M IS S E D . See Alwan v.

2