Gaudencio Pacheco-Dominguez v. Pamela Bondi

facts,” we lack “jurisdiction to review a factual question raised in an application

for discretionary relief.” Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209, 221–22 (2024).

Here, Pacheco makes a factual argument over which we lack jurisdiction.

Pacheco frames his argument in legal terms by alleging the agency failed to

consider the hardship on his children if they were to remain in the United States.

But this is not “a legal error in understanding the meaning of ‘exceptional and

extremely unusual hardship.’” Figueroa v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 487, 495 (9th Cir.

2008) (citation omitted), impliedly overruled on other grounds in Abebe v.

Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc). Rather, Pacheco contests the

agency’s factual finding that his children would follow him to Mexico if he were

removed from the United States.

Because we lack jurisdiction to review factual questions, we dismiss the

petition for review. As such, we also decline to address Pacheco’s arguments

about exhaustion and about the appropriate legal standard for the hardship

determination.

2

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

3