2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 5-25-2004 

# Quir ino v . Atty Ge n U SA P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 02-4070

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" Quir ino v . Att y Ge n U SA" (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 686. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/6861 NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT No: 02-4070 VICTO R M ANU EL QU IRINO and SOLEDAD RIVERA-LOPEZ Petitioners

v. JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UN ITED STATES On Petiti on for Review of an Order of Removal from

the B oard of Im migra tion A ppea ls U.S. Department

of Justi ce Executive Offi ce for Immigr ation Revi ew (BIA No. A90-678-547) Submitte d Pursuant to Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

November 6, 2003 Be for e: M cK EE , SM ITH , and GR EE NB ER G, Circuit Judges
. (Opinion Fi led: May25, 2004)

OPI NION M cK EE , Circuit

Judge
. Petitioners Victor Quirino and Soleda d Rivera-Lopez, husband and wife, are Mexican nationa ls whose removalhas been order ed by an immigrati on judge (“I J”) and affirmed by

the Board of I mmigrati on Appeals (“BIA”). On appeal to t his court, t

hey argue that the BIA viol ated their due process ri ghts by affirmi ng the IJ ’s deci sion without1 INA § 24 0A (b)(1), 8 U.S .C. § 1 229 b(b)(1 ), gives th e A ttorney G enera l and h is

desig nates th e ability to ca ncel a n alien ’s rem oval if the alien : (A) has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 1 0 years im med iately prece ding the da te of su ch ap plication ; (B) h as be en a p erson of g ood mo ral cha racter d uring such period ; (C) has not

been convict ed of an offense under [INA] secti on 212(a)( 2), 237( a)(2) , or 237(a)( 3) (except

in a case described in [INA] section 237(a) (7) where t he Attorney General exer cises discr etion to grant a wai ver); and (D) esta

blis hes that

removal would re sult

in except ional and extremely unusua l hardship to the a lien' s spouse, parent, or chil d, who is a citize n of the Unit ed State s or an alien law fully a dm itted for per ma nen t resid enc e. 2 issuing an opinion. They al so argue t hat the BIA erred when it a ffirmed t he IJ’s decisi on because he vi olate d their due process right s to ent er evide nce int o the rec ord and he incorr ectl y det ermined that the y were not eligible for c ancell ation of removal. For the
re as ons th atfol lo w, we wil l a ffirm. I. Bec ause we write o nly for the parties, it is n ot nec essary to re cite the facts of this case in de tail . It

is suff icie nt to not e that

Quirino and Rive ra-Lopez ent ered the U.S. from Mexi co wit

hout ins pe ct io n i n 19 81 and 1 989 re sp ec tive ly . In Oc to be r 1 999 , t he INS issued t he peti tioner s Notices to Appear al leging t hat the y ent ered the U.S. without being admitted or p aroled, in violation of the Imm igration and N aturalization Ac t (“INA ”) § 212(a)( 6)(A)(I ). The pet iti oners concede d that t hey were s ubject

to removalfrom the U.S., but app lied for canc ellation of rem oval und er INA § 240A (b)(1). 1 To s upp ort their a pplica tion fo r canc ellation, th e petition ers pre sented a child psy chol ogis t’s eval uati on of the effe ct t hat t heir removalwould hav e on one o f the ir U. S.3

citizen children, nine-year-old S tephanie, du ring the rem oval hearing . The petitioners claim that Stephanie was present at t heir removal hearing at the cl ose of petitioners’ test imony and was pr epared t o test ify , but t he IJ di d not permit

her to testi fy. There is no record in the hear ing tr anscript that Stephanie ’s te sti mony was disc ussed. At the conclusion of t

he heari ng, the IJ deni ed the pet iti oners’ a pplication for cancell ation of

removal becaus e they

did not es tabli sh that

their U.S. citizen chi ldren
wo uld suffer “ exc eptio nal a nd e xtre me ly unu sua l har dsh ip” u nde r IN A § 240 A( b)(1 )(D ). The p etitioners appealed the decision to the BIA . A single B IA m embe r affirmed the IJ’s decisio n w ithout a n op inion o n O ctobe r 4, 20 02, pu rsuan t to 8 C .F.R. § 3.1(e)( 4) (Se pt. 25, 2 002 ). Th e pe tition ers tim ely ap pea led to this c our t. II. INA § 106(a) gives Court s of Appeals t he authority

to revi ew all fi nal order s of deportation agai nst al iens, and stat es that venue is pr oper in t

he judic ial c ircui t in which the pet iti oner res ides. Quirino and Rive ra-Lopez had been residi ng in New Jersey at the time t he brief s in this cas e were fil ed, making venue proper i n this circuit. The gov ernme ntch al le nge s o ursubj ec t- mat te r j ur is di ct io n ov er

th is cl ai m, st at in g tha t INA § 242(a)( 2)(B)(I ) depri ves thi s court of juri sdict ion to r eview anyjudgment re garding
remov al of canc ellation under IN A § 2 40A (b). INA § 242(a)(2)( B)(I) s tate s: “Notwit hstandi ng any ot

her provi sion of l aw, no court s hall have juri sdict ion to r eview. . . any judgment re garding t

he granting of reli ef4

und er se ction 212 (h), 2 12( I), 240A , 240B, or 245. ” (emphasis added). The meani ng of “judg men t” in § 2 42(a )(2)(B )(I) is unc lear; it cou ld me an “a ny decisio n” of the B IA, o r it could mean “a deci sion i nvolving t he exerci se of dis creti on.” Mendez-Moranchel v. Ash croft , 338 F.3d 176, 178 (3d Cir. 2003) (quot ing Mont ero -Martin ez v . Ash cro ft, 277 F.3d 11 39, 1144 (9th Cir. 2001 )). We hav e concluded “that, for nondiscreti onary factors, the C our t ma intai ns ju risdi ction , but as to disc retio nar y dec ision s w e lac k ju risdi ction .” Id. We therefore m ust determine which of the qu estions presen ted here are nondiscretionary . The petitioners ’ arguments regarding violati on of their due process rights a re, of c ourse , nond iscretion ary facto rs. Ho we ver, the petition ers’ third argu men t, that t he IJ er red when she dete rmined that they were inel igibl e for cancel lati on of removal because they did not meet the hardship requi rement in INA § 2 40A(b)(1)(D), involves a discr etionarydecisi on. We held in Mendez-Moranchelthat t he Commissioner’ s decis ion regarding whether an al ien meets this hardship requir ement is di scret ionary . 338 F.3d at 179
. III. We re vi ew the p et itio ner s’ re mai ni ng t wo du e pr oce ss cl ai ms s er iati m. A. Quirino and Rive ra-Lopez argue that the BIA violated the ir due pr ocess ri ghts by affirmi ng the IJ ’s deci sion without an opini on pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(e) (4) (Sept . 25,2 8 C.F.R. § 3. 1(e)( 4) became effective Septe mber 25, 2002
. 5 2002). 2 In Dia v. Ash croft , 353 F .3d 22 8 (3d Cir. 20 03) (e n ban c), this co urt rece ntly denied such a

due process chall enge to the affir mance without opinion (“AWO”)
me cha nism in 8 C.F .R § 3.1( a)(7 ) (20 02) . Th e A W O p roc ess is esse ntial ly the sa me her e. Ac cor din gly, Dia control s our revi ew. Applying Dia ’s rati ona le to th e c as e a t h an d, we find that the pe titioner’ s due proces s right to an individuali zed deter minati on was not vio lated
. B. The p etitioners also argue tha t their Fifth Am endm ent due p rocess rights w ere denied when the I J fail ed to al low their daughter St ephanie t o test ify at the ir r emoval hearing. They st ate that thi s viol ation of their right s prej udiced their ca se, and t hat it was impr ope r t o i ss ue an AWO be caus e the 8 C. F. R. § 3. 1( e) (4 ) me ch an is m al lo ws AWOs only if “an y error s in th e de cisio n un der rev iew we re h arm less o r no nm ateri al.” As the peti tioner s concede, there i s no recor d of any di scussi on or decis ion
re ga rd in g S tep ha ni e’ s te sti m on y. At th e hea ring, af

ter both petition ers testifie d reg arding the ha rdship their deportation would have on their ol dest daught er, t he IJ aske d the government if it had an objection to voluntary

departure and rendered her decision in the case. The petitioners’ counsel made no r equest or object ion on the record, and the court did not go off

the
reco rd d urin g th is pa rt of the p roc eed ing s. Id
.6

Eve n if w e agre ed w ith petition ers’ leg al argu men t that the p reclus ion o f their daughter' s testimony would vi olate their due process right s, t

here is no factualbasis f or the a sser tion that h er tes timo ny w as p reclu ded
. IV. For allof the above r easons, we will affi rm the deci sion of t he Board of Immigrations Appeals.