Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-04164/USCOURTS-ca8-06-04164-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael B. Mukasey
Respondent
Gabriel Treto-Diaz
Petitioner
Margarita Treto-Ribera
Petitioner

Document Text:

1

Michael B. Mukasey has been appointed to serve as Attorney General of the

United States, and is substituted as respondent pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 43(c).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-4164

___________

Gabriel Treto-Diaz; Margarita *

Treto-Ribera, *

*

Petitioners, *

* Petition for Review of an

v. * Order from the Board

* of Immigration Appeals.

Michael B. Mukasey,1

 U.S. Attorney *

General, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Respondent. *

___________

Submitted: February 28, 2008

Filed: March 10, 2008

___________

Before MURPHY, COLLOTON, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Gabriel Treto-Diaz and Margarita Treto-Ribera petition for review of an order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying their motion to reconsider an

earlier decision affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) decision finding that petitioners

did not meet the hardship requirement for cancellation of removal. For reversal,

Appellate Case: 06-4164 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/10/2008 Entry ID: 3411065
-2-

petitioners assert the agency violated their right to due process by failing to give

sufficient consideration to their arguments. 

We note that the order petitioners asked the BIA to reconsider--its discretionary

decision that petitioners failed to qualify for cancellation of removal--was itself

unreviewable. Therefore, we conclude that we also lack jurisdiction to review the

BIA’s denial of petitioners’ motion to reconsider. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)

(cancellation-of-removal eligibility requirements for nonpermanent residents); 8

U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) (no court shall have jurisdiction to review any discretionary

judgment regarding granting relief under, inter alia, § 1229b); Zacarias-Velasquez v.

Mukasey, 509 F.3d 429, 434 (8th Cir. 2007) (whether alien meets exceptional-andextremely-unusual-hardship threshold is “precisely the discretionary determination

that Congress shielded from our review” under § 1252(a)(2)(B)); cf. Rodriguez v.

Ashcroft, 253 F.3d 797, 800 (5th Cir. 2000) (if appellate court is divested of

jurisdiction to review original hardship decision, it must also be divested of

jurisdiction to review denial of motion to reopen; “to hold otherwise would create a

loophole that would thwart the clear intent of Congress that the courts not review the

discretionary decisions of the BIA”).

Although petitioners purport to raise a due process challenge to the BIA’s order,

see Munoz-Yepez v. Gonzales, 465 F.3d 347, 351 (8th Cir. 2006) (appeals court has

jurisdiction to review constitutional claims raised in petition for review), we conclude

their challenge merely attacks the substance of the BIA’s decision, see Meraz-Reyes

v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 842, 843 (8th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (although appellate

review includes constitutional challenges, “a petitioner may not create the jurisdiction

that Congress chose to remove simply by cloaking an abuse of discretion argument

in constitutional garb”) (quoting Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.

2001)); see also Saloum v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 437 F.3d 238, 243-

44 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (alien’s invocation of due process language in petition

for review of discretionary denial of removal relief did not allege colorable

Appellate Case: 06-4164 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/10/2008 Entry ID: 3411065
-3-

constitutional violation; alien did not allege denial of full and fair hearing or that he

was otherwise denied due process, but only alleged that IJ erred in weighing evidence

and reached wrong outcome). 

Accordingly, we deny the petition. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-4164 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/10/2008 Entry ID: 3411065