Esteban Flores-Alonso v. U.S. Attorney General, 36 F.4th 1095

Petitioner Esteban Flores-Alonso, a Mexican national, entered the U.S. without authorization (found to have entered in 2001) and faced removal after a traffic stop.
He applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b; the Immigration Judge (IJ) denied relief on March 21, 2018, finding he failed the "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" and continuous-presence requirements.
The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, applying Matter of Monreal-Aguinaga’s hardship standard and concluding petitioner’s U.S. citizen children would face only hardship ‘‘expected upon removal.’'
The BIA relied on the IJ’s factual finding that the daughter would accompany Flores-Alonso to Mexico and therefore declined to address the asserted risk of state custody.
Flores-Alonso appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, arguing (1) the BIA misapplied the hardship standard and disregarded custody uncertainty and (2) the BIA failed to render a reasoned decision aggregating hardship factors.
The Eleventh Circuit held it could only review legal or constitutional claims, not the agency’s factual findings, and dismissed the petition for lack of legal error.

Issue	Flores-Alonso's Argument	Government/BIA's Position	Held
Whether the BIA legally erred in applying the "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" standard	BIA mischaracterized the daughter’s hardship and ignored custody uncertainty that could prevent her from accompanying him to Mexico	BIA applied the correct Monreal-Aguinaga standard and relied on the IJ’s factual finding that the daughter would accompany petitioner	Dismissed — no legal error; IJ/BIA factual finding that daughter would accompany petitioner is binding and unreviewable
Whether the BIA failed to render a reasoned decision by not aggregating hardship factors	BIA did not adequately consider all hardship factors in the aggregate as required by Monreal-Aguinaga	BIA cited and applied the proper standard and considered relevant factors; the assessment is discretionary and subjective	Dismissed — no reviewable legal error; discretionary factual judgments are not revisited on appeal

Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614 (2022) (jurisdictional limits on judicial review of agency factual findings in immigration cases)
Jeune v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 810 F.3d 792 (11th Cir. 2016) (scope of appellate review of immigration decisions)
Todorovic v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 621 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2010) (IJ is primary factfinder in immigration proceedings)
Chacon-Botero v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 427 F.3d 954 (11th Cir. 2005) (when BIA adopts IJ decision affects scope of review)
Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2006) (court lacks jurisdiction to consider arguments not passed on by the BIA)