Praxedis Rodriguez Barnache v. U.S. Attorney General

USCA11 Case: 26-10042 Document: 20-1 Date Filed: 07/24/2026 Page: 1 of 4

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 26-10042 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

PRAXEDIS RODRIGUEZ BARNACHE,

Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

____________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A099-917-546 ____________________

Before ROSENBAUM, LAGOA, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In 2023, an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denied Praxedis Rodri- guez Barnache’s application for cancellation of removal, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b, and ordered him removed. Barnache appealed 2 Opinion of the Court 26-10042 and moved for an extension of time to file his brief, but the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denied his request. Barnache filed his brief after the deadline, along with a motion for the BIA to ac- cept it, which the BIA denied. On December 10, 2025, the BIA en- tered a final order affirming the IJ’s decision without opinion.

Barnache now seeks review of the BIA’s final order. In his brief to us, Barnache argues that the BIA’s refusal to grant him an extension of time to file a brief and accept his late-filed brief vio- lated his due process rights because he was precluded from obtain- ing appellate review.

The government moves to dismiss Barnache’s petition for review. It asserts that we lack jurisdiction to review discretionary decisions concerning cancellation of removal, and that Barnache has not raised a constitutional claim or question of law so as to in- voke our jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). In response, Barnache contends that he has raised a constitutional claim because his argument on appeal concerns the denial of due process resulting from the BIA’s exercise of its regulatory authority, not whether the BIA denied discretionary relief. In reply, the government argues that Barnache did not raise a colorable constitutional claim because he does not have a constitutionally protected interest in discretion- ary relief and his claim is an unreviewable abuse of discretion argu- ment “couched in constitutional language.”

Although we generally have jurisdiction to review final or- ders of the BIA, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s December 10 order because it concerns Barnache’s application for cancellation 26-10042 Opinion of the Court 3 of removal. See Jaggernauth v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 432 F.3d 1346, 1350 (11th Cir. 2005) (explaining that, under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), we have jurisdiction to review final orders of removal); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (providing that courts of appeals lack jurisdiction to review judgments regarding relief granted pursuant to § 1229b); 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. Nevertheless, under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), that jurisdictional bar does not limit our ability to review colorable con- stitutional claims or questions of law. Martinez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1219, 1221-22 (11th Cir. 2006); see Arias v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 482 F.3d 1281, 1284 & n.2 (11th Cir. 2007) (explaining that such challenges must be “at least . . . colorable,” meaning they must have “some possible validity” (quotation marks omitted)).

Here, Barnache has not raised a colorable constitutional claim. See Arias, 482 F.3d at 1284 & n.2. Barnache’s due process claim is meritless because he does not have a constitutionally pro- tected interest in obtaining an extension of time to file a brief or having the BIA consider his late-filed brief, as those are forms of discretionary relief. See Zafar v. Att’y Gen., 461 F.3d 1357, 1367 (11th Cir. 2006) (providing that “there is no constitutionally protected right to discretionary relief”); Alkotof v. Att’y Gen., 106 F.4th 1289, 1298 (11th Cir. 2024) (“[B]ecause Alkotof raises a constitutional ar- gument in the context of discretionary forms of relief—the denial of a motion to remand and conclusion that he was not eligible for cancellation of removal—we do not have jurisdiction to review it.”).

4 Opinion of the Court 26-10042

Therefore, the government’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The petition is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.