Hernandez Roman v. Garland

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedMay 11, 2022
Docket20-60844
StatusUnpublished

This text of Hernandez Roman v. Garland (Hernandez Roman v. Garland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hernandez Roman v. Garland, (5th Cir. 2022).

Opinion

Case: 20-60844 Document: 00516315180 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/11/2022

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED No. 20-60844 May 11, 2022 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

Ramon Hernandez Roman,

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A205 471 365

Before Barksdale, Costa, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Ramon Hernandez Roman, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissing his appeal from the denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Roman contends the BIA failed to address key items of medical evidence, in

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4. Case: 20-60844 Document: 00516315180 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/11/2022

No. 20-60844

contravention of its precedent, in concluding he failed to demonstrate his removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relatives. This challenge, however, is unexhausted. Therefore, our court lacks jurisdiction to address it. See Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452–53 (5th Cir. 2001) (noting “alien fails to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to an issue when the issue is not raised in the first instance before the BIA—either on direct appeal or in a motion to reopen”). Additionally, because Roman does not address the BIA’s conclusion that he failed to demonstrate an undue hardship to his qualifying relatives, he has abandoned any such challenge. See Chambers v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 445, 448 n.1 (5th Cir. 2008) (holding challenge waived for failure to brief). DISMISSED IN PART; DENIED IN PART.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kuang-Te Wang v. Ashcroft
260 F.3d 448 (Fifth Circuit, 2001)
Chambers v. Mukasey
520 F.3d 445 (Fifth Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hernandez Roman v. Garland, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hernandez-roman-v-garland-ca5-2022.