Efrain Garcia-Lopez v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EFRAIN GARCIA-LOPEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 22-600
Agency No. A216-073-753
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 12, 2023**
Seattle, Washington
Before: MCKEOWN, BYBEE, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.
Petitioner Efrain Garcia-Lopez petitions this court to review the Board of
FILED
MAY 11 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) dismissal of his appeal. The BIA affirmed the
Immigration Judge’s (IJ) decision denying cancellation of removal because Garcia-
Lopez failed to show “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a qualifying
relative.
We lack jurisdiction to review the merits of the Agency’s discretionary
determination regarding “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). But we do have jurisdiction to review whether the BIA and IJ
“considered relevant evidence” in reaching that conclusion. Szonyi v. Barr, 942
F.3d 874, 896 (9th Cir. 2019). We review for abuse of discretion. Id.
The parties are familiar with the facts in this case, and we repeat them only
as necessary.
After reviewing the record, we find no evidence that the IJ overlooked
relevant evidence in determining that Garcia-Lopez did not qualify for cancellation
of removal. The IJ’s decision mentioned petitioner’s daughter’s depression while
he was detained, and it specifically noted that her depression was “corroborated by
a psychological evaluation.” Further, the BIA conducted a de novo review of the
record. The BIA re-emphasized the existence of an official diagnosis for
adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depression. Thus, the official
diagnosis was not absent from the Agency’s consideration, and the BIA did not

-- 2 of 3 --

abuse its discretion in denying to remand the petition to the IJ. We lack
jurisdiction to review the BIA’s “subjective, discretionary judgment” regarding
exceptional and extremely unusual hardship any further. Romero-Torres v.
Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 888 (9th Cir. 2003).
DENIED.

-- 3 of 3 --