Reyes-Alvarado v. Garland ( 2023 )

Case: 22-60616 Document: 00516741253 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/08/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 22-60616
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ May 8, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
Jorge Reyes-Alvarado, Clerk
Petitioner,
versus
Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
______________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Agency No. A208 550 511
______________________________
Before Smith, Southwick, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Jorge Reyes-Alvarado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing
his appeal from a decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying his
application for cancellation of removal and ordering him removed. This
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-60616 Document: 00516741253 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/08/2023
No. 22-60616
court reviews the BIA’s decision and considers the IJ’s only insofar as it is
adopted by the BIA. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018).
Insofar as Reyes-Alvarado challenges the IJ’s determinations
concerning good moral character and credibility, this court may not review
them. See id. The BIA “agree[d]” with the IJ’s “dispositive” conclusion
that Reyes-Alvarado had not made the requisite showing of “exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship” to his United States children. See Castillo-
Gutierrez v. Garland, 43 F.4th 477, 481 (5th Cir. 2022). Because Reyes-
Alvarado does not address this issue, and we are precluded from reviewing
the portions of the IJ’s opinion not adopted by the BIA, the issues of his good
moral character and credibility are not properly before this court.
Reyes-Alvarado’s argument that his due process right not to be
separated from his children will be infringed by the denial of his cancellation
claim fails because the denial of cancellation does not implicate any protected
interests under the Due Process Clause and because removal does not
implicate any protected liberty interest in a parent’s relationship with his
children. See Mireles-Valdez v. Ashcroft, 349 F.3d 213, 219 (5th Cir. 2003);
Malagon de Fuentes v. Gonzales, 462 F.3d 498, 505-06 (5th Cir. 2006); see also
Carrillo-Almazan v. Lynch, 613 F. App’x 441, 442 (5th Cir. 2015). Finally,
his argument that his due process rights were violated when the IJ and BIA
exhibited bias fails because he has not shown “pervasive bias and prejudice”
or “hostility due to extrajudicial sources or . . . a deep-seated favoritism or
antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” See Cardona-Franco
v. Garland, 35 F.4th 359, 363 (5th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
The petition for review is DENIED.
2