OPINION *
Ariel Ramirez-Aguilar, a native and citizen of Guatemala, entered the United States in 2002, leaving behind his pregnant wife. On his first entry, border patrol agents spotted and removed him, but he re-entered the country without inspection less than 24 hours later. Since then, he has worked as a farm laborer supporting his new family in the United States—an undocumented Mexican national partner, Aurelia, and their now-six-year-old son, E.R.A., who has a history of health problems.
Following Ramirez-Aguilars arrest and conviction for a DUI offense in 2014, the Government began removal proceedings against him. Ramirez-Aguilar conceded he was removable but sought cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). The immigration judge (“IJ”) determined that although Ramirez-Aguilar was credible and satisfied the other criteria for cancellation (i.e., continuous physical presence, good moral character, and no disqualifying convictions), he failed to establish “that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to [his] spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). The IJ denied the application for cancellation of removal and the BIA affirmed. Ramirez-Aguilar timely petitioned us for review.
We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Ramirez-Aguilar primarily argues that the BIA erred in its hardship determination by failing to conclude that E.R.A.’s serious health problems were exceptional and extremely unusual hardship, as well as ignoring Aurelias inability to care for E.R.A. adequately. But the BIA considered all these arguments in affirming the IJs hardship determination, A.R. 3–4, and we do not have jurisdiction to review its discretionary judgment on this issue. See Mendez-Moranchel v. Ashcroft, 338 F.3d 176, 179 (3d Cir. 2003) (“The decision whether an alien meets the hardship requirement in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b is ․ a discretionary judgment [, and] we lack jurisdiction to review [it].”). Although Ramirez-Aguilar frames his challenge as constitutional due process violations, what we have is a “disagreement about weighing hardship factors [, which] is a discretionary judgment call, not a legal question.” Hernandez-Morales v. Atty Gen., 977 F.3d 247, 248–49 (3d Cir. 2020).
* * * * *
While we appreciate that Ramirez-Aguilars removal may have harsh and life-changing consequences for his family, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIAs discretionary determination that his removal does not create exceptional and extremely unusual hardship for his U.S. citizen son. We thus must dismiss his petition.
AMBRO, Circuit Judge