I M G - 271 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 09- 2812

___________ M A RV I N RE Y ES, a/k/a M arvi n R olando R ey es M enco s, Pet i t i oner

v. A TTO RN EY G EN ER A L O F TH E U N I TED STA TES, R es pondent

____________________________________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of an O r derof the B o a rd o f Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( A gencyN o. A 073- 650- 169) I m m i gr at i on J udge: H onor abl e Sus an G . R oy

____________________________________ Subm i tt ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A ugus t4, 2010 B efor e: FU E N T E S, V A N A SK I E and V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges

( O pi ni on fi l ed A ugus t5, 2010)

_________ OP INI ON

_________ P E R C UR I AM M arvi n R ey es pet i t i ons forr evi ew of an or derof the B oar d of I m m i gr at i on A p p e a ls (“ B IA ” ) a f

f irm in g a n Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e ’s ( “ IJ” ) d e c isio n d e n y in g h is2

appl i cat i on forcanc el l at i on of r emoval . Forthe r eas ons thatfol l ow , w e w i l l gr antthe g o v e rn me n t ’ s mo t i o n t o d i s mi s s a n dd i s mi s s th e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. I . R ey es, a ci t i zen o f G uatem al a, enter ed the U nit ed S t at es on a n on -i m m i grantvis a i n A ugus t1992, and s t ay ed l ongerthan perm i tt ed. I n Sept ember2007, the governm ent i ns t i tut ed r emoval pr ocee di ngs . R ey es conce ded r emovabi l i tybutr eques t ed cancel l at i on o f re m o v a l p u rsu a n t to IN A § 2 4 0 A (b )(1 ) [ 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 b (b )(1 )] b a se do n h is a lleg a tio n th a t h is re m o v a l w o u ldre su lt i n e x c e p tio n a l an de x tre m e lyu n u su a l h a rd sh ip to hi s U . S. ci t i zen c hi l d. R ey es t es t i fi ed thathi s y oung s on s uffe r s fr om eari nfec t i ons and a llerg ies . H e tes tifie dth a t if h e is re m o v e d , h is s o n w o u lda c c o m p a n yh im , an dh e is conce rned thathi s s on w oul d notbe abl e t o r ece i ve ade quat e medi calatt ent i on or e d u c a tio n in G u a te m a la . T h e I Jc o n s i d e r e dth e f

a m i l y’ s c i r c u m s t a n c e s , i n c l u d i n g th e s o n ’ s m e d i c a l h i s t o ry, butfound thatR ey es ’ s r emoval w oul d notcons t i tut e exc ept i onal and extr emel yunus ual har ds hi p t o hi s s on. T he I Jdeni ed R ey es ’ s appl i cat i on forcanc el l at i on of r emoval and gr ant ed hi s al t ernat i ve appl i cat i on forvol unt arydepartur e t o G uat emal a. R ey es appea l ed t o the B IA , w hich affi rm ed the I J’ s denial , agreei ng that R ey es fai l ed to est abli sh e x c e p tio n a l a n de x tr e m e ly u n u s u a l h a rd s h ip . R e y e s f ile da tim e ly p e titio n f

o r r e v ie w . T he governm entfi l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s the pet i t i on forl ack of j ur i s di ct i on. A m ot i ons panelof thi s C ourtr efe rr ed the governm ent ’ s m ot i on t o thi s panel . See I . O . P. 10. 3. 5.3 II. A lth o u g h w e h a v e a u th o ri ty to re v ie w f in a l o rd e rs o f

re m o v a l u n d e r 8 U .S .C . § 1252( a) ( 1) , w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on under8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) t o r evi ew fac tual or d isc re tio n a ryd e term in a tio n s s u c h a s w h e th e r a p e tit io n e r h a s s a tisf ied th e h a rd sh ip r equi r ementforcanc el l at i on of r emoval . M endez - M or anche l v. A s hcr oft , 338 F. 3d 176, 178 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . W e do have j ur i s di ct i on, how ever , t o r evi ew “cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s or ques t i ons of l aw ” r ai s ed i n a pet i t i on forr evi ew . 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) . W e do s o de no vo , subjectt o the deference p ri ncipl es setforth in C hev ron U S A , Inc. v. N atural R es. D ef. C ounci l , I nc. , 467 U . S. 837, 842- 44 ( 1984) . See W u v. A tt ’ yG en. , 571 F. 3d 314, 3 1 7 (3 dC ir . 2 0 0 9 ) ( p e r c u ri a m ). H ere , R ey es a sserts th at th e IJ’s an dB IA ’s de cisi o n s fa il ed to co n side r fa ctors p re se n ted in h is c a se , d e p riv in g h is s o n “ o f h is d u e p ro c e ss a n dc o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts to rec eive m ed ical an dsp ec ial serv ices b ec au se o f h is he aring p rob lem s. ” (P et. B r. at 3.) “Pet i t i oner s al l egi ng ‘ cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s ’ under§ 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) m us t , as a thr es hol d, s t at e a c ol or abl e vi ol at i on of the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on. ” J arbough v. A tt ’ yG en. , 483 F. 3d 184, 189 ( 3d C i r . 2007) . I n thi s cas e, R ey es ’ s cl ai m fai l s t o over come thi s thr es hol d, i nv ok i ng the D ue P rocess C l ause i n n am e on l y . In the im m i grat i on con t ext, du e process ent i t l es an al i en t o “a f

ul l and fa i rhear i ng and a r eas onabl e opportuni tyt o pr es ent e v id e n c e .” R o m a n ish yn v . A tt’yG e n ., 4 5 5 F .3 d1 7 5 , 1 8 5 (3 dC ir. 2 0 0 6 ). R e y e s f a ils to t i e t o the D ue Pr oces s C l aus e the al l eged f actual err orand fa i l ur e t o cons i derevi dence ,4

and the r ecor d does noti ndi cat e thatanys uch err or s depr i ved the pet i t i onerof “not i ce and a me a n i n g f

u l o p p o rtu n i tyt o b e h e a r d . ” J a rb o u g h , 4 8 3 F . 3 da t1 9 0 . F u rth e r , s u c h c l a i ms do notcons t i tut e ques t i ons of l aw . I d. at189 ( “[C]ourt s have r ecogni zed ar gum ent s s uch as thatan I m m i gr at i on Judge orthe B I A i ncorr ect l yw ei ghed evi dence , fai l ed t o cons i der ev iden ce o r i m p rop erlyw eigh ed eq u it ab le fa ctors a re n o t qu esti o n s o f law . . . ”). A ccor di ngl y , w e maynotent ert ai n R ey es ’ s att emptt o pr es enthi s ar gum enti n t erm s of the D u e P roc ess C laus e. S ee § 1 2 5 2 (a)(2)(B )(i ) R e y e s a lso c laim s th a t th e B IA d idn o t f o llo w its o w n p re c e d e n t b yf a ili n g to cons i derthe har ds hi p fac t or s cumul at i vel yi n evaluat i ng hi s appl i cat i on forcanc el l at i on o f re m o v a l. W h e th e r a n a g e n c yap p lie s th e c o rr e c t le g a l s ta n d a rd is aqu e s tio n o f la w . Fadi ga v. A tt ’ yG en. , 488 F. 3d 142, 153- 54 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ; L i u v. I . N . S. , 508 F. 3d 716, 7 2 1 (2 dC ir. 2 0 0 7 ) (p e r c u ria m ). H e re , h o w e v e r, R e y e s’ a ss e rtio n ap p e a rs o n lyto chal l enge the B I A ’ s exer ci s e of i t s di s cr et i on i n det erm i ni ng thathe di d notm eetthe har ds hi p r equi r ementforcanc el l at i on of r emoval . A s expl ai ned above , w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew thatdet erm i nat i on. See M endez - M or anche l , 338 F. 3d at178; J arbough, 483 F. 3d at190. Forthe above r eas ons , w e w i l l gr antthe governm ent ’ s m ot i on and di s m i s s the p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w.