USCA11 Case: 25-10741 Document: 9-1 Date Filed: 08/07/2025 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 25-10741 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

GILTON BAIN, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

____________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A210-032-951 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 25-10741 Document: 9-1 Date Filed: 08/07/2025 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 25-10741

Before GRANT, LUCK, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Gilton Bain seeks review of the Board of Immigration Ap- peals’ discretionary denial of cancellation of removal. The govern- ment moves to dismiss, arguing that the jurisdictional-stripping provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) bar re- view of this discretionary decision. “With an exception for legal and constitutional questions, Congress has barred judicial review of the Attorney General’s de- cisions denying discretionary relief from removal,” which includes cancellation of removal under INA § 240A, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. Patel v. Garland, 596 U.S. 328, 331, 347 (2022) (holding that “[f]ederal courts lack jurisdiction to review facts found as part of discretion- ary-relief proceedings under . . . the . . . provisions enumerated in § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i),” one of which is cancellation of removal); see Wil- kinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209, 225 n.4 (2024) (“[I]f the IJ decides a noncitizen is eligible for cancellation of removal at step one, his step-two discretionary determination on whether or not to grant cancellation of removal in the particular case is not reviewable as a question of law.”); INA § 242(a)(2)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Bain, who did not respond to the government’s motion to dismiss, has not identified a colorable constitutional claim or question of law, and we find none in the record. USCA11 Case: 25-10741 Document: 9-1 Date Filed: 08/07/2025 Page: 3 of 3

25-10741 Opinion of the Court 3

Accordingly, the government’s motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction is GRANTED. All other pending motions are DENIED as moot.