FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J ANUARY 9, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 12 36 6 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 89 -2 55 -8 26
GITABEN R. PATEL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne r, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, lll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J anua ry 9, 2 01 2) Befo re BARKETT, HULL andBLACK, Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM:Git ab enPat el , a na ti ve an d c it iz enof I nd ia , pet it io ns forrev ie w of the Bo ard

of Im m ig rat io n Ap pe al ’s (“ BIA”) de ci si onaffi rm in g the Im m ig rat io n Jud ge ’s (“ IJ ”) o rd er d en y in g h er ap pl ic at io n fo r can cel la ti onof r em ov al . An ap pl ic an t m ay qu al ify for ca nc el la ti on of r em ov al by establ is hi ng (1) a co nt in uo us ph y si cal pr es en ce i n the Uni te d S ta te s fo r atlea st10 y ears ; (2 ) go odm or al ch arac te r du rin g su chpe rio d; (3) a la ck

of c on vi ct io ns forcert ai n o ffen se s; an d (4 ) ex cep ti on al an d ex tre m el y un us ua l h ard sh ip to th e ap pl ic an t’s s po us e, pa ren t, o r ch il d, wh o i s a U.S. cit iz enor p erm an en t re si de nt . INA § 2 40 A(b )(1 )(A)-( D), 8 U.S.C. § 1 22 9b (b )(1 )(A)-( D). In h er p et it io n fo r rev ie w, Pate l ar gu es th atth e BIA an d IJ vi ol at edth ei r own pre ced en t b y fai li ng to rev ie w th e en ti re re co rdwhen de te rm in in g wh ethe r Pat el ’s return t o In di a wou ldcau se ex cep ti on al an d ex tre m el y un us ua l h ard sh ip to he r two U.S. cit iz ench il dr enan d h er p aren ts , who are l awfu l p erm an en t re si de nt s. Pat el furth er ar gu es th atth e BIA’s an d IJ ’s fact fin di ng reg ard in g the hard sh ip ele m en t was so fat al ly flawedas t o c on st itut e a rev ie wab le erro r of

law. 1 Befo re co ns id eri ng th e m eri ts of ape ti ti on , we rev ie w subjec t m at te r We reviewthe B IA’s and IJ ’s leg al deter minations de novo . Hernande z v. U.S. Att’y 1 Gen. , 513 F.3d 1336, 1339 ( 11th Cir. 2008). “We revie w only the B oard’ s decision, except to the extent that it ex pressly adopts the I J ’s opinion.” Najjar v. Ashcroft , 257 F.3d 1262, 1284 (11th Cir. 2001). B eca

use the B IA indicated that it affirmed the I J ’s ana ly sis and conclusion that Patel did not establish the requisite har dship and also conduc ted its own analy sis, we re view both the I J ’s and B IA’s dec isions. See id. 2juri sd ic ti on de no vo . Rese ndiz -Alc ar azv. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 38 3 F .3d12 62 , 12 66

(1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) . Notwiths tand in g any oth er p ro vi si onof l aw, we la ck juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th e d is cret io na ry gra nt in g o r de ni al of c an cel la ti on of r em ov al . INA § 2 42 (a)( 2) (B)( i), 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 2( a)(2 )(B) (i) . W e al so have he ldth atwe lac k juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th e BIA’s d is cret io nary de te rm in at io n tha t an ap pl ic an t h as no t m et§ 1 22 9b (b )(1 )(D)’s “ ex cep ti on al an d e xt rem el y un us ua l h ard sh ip ” st an da rd . Mar ti ne

z v. U.S . Att’ y Gen . , 44 6 F .3d12 19 , 12 22 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Non ethe le ss , we ret ai n juris di ct io n o ve r co ns ti tu ti on al cla im s o r qu es ti on s o f la w. INA § 2 42 (a)( 2) (D), 8 U.S.C. § 12 52 (a)( 2) (D). As an in it ia l m at te r, we ha ve juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w, as a que st io n o f la w, Pat el ’s cla im

th atth e BIA an d IJ vi ol at edth ei r own pre ced en t i n fa il in g t o re vi ew th e rec or d a s a wh ol e. Inrev ie win g an IJ ’s di sc ret io na ry de ni al of r el ie f, th e BIA ha s h el d tha t, “ [u ]pon rev ie w of the reco rdas awho le , th e Imm ig rat io n J ud ge is requi redto ba lanc e th e equi ti es an d a dv ers e m at te rs to de te rm in e whe th er di sc ret io n s ho ul d b e fav or ab ly exerc is ed .” In re Me ndez -Mo ra le z , 21 I. & N. Dec. 29 6, 3 01 (BIA 1 99 6) . Howev er, the BIA an d IJ are n otrequi redto ad dr es s sp eci fic al ly each p ie ce o f ev id en ce p res en te d, as lo ng as t he y co ns id er the is su es rai se d andan no un ce a d eci si on est ab li sh in g tha t “ th ey have he ardan d tho ug htan d no t m erel y

reac te d.” Aya la v. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 60 5 F .3d94 1, 9 48 (11 th Cir . 20 10 ) 3(b rack et s an d quo ta ti on om it te d) .

Co nt rary to Pa te l’s ar gu m en t tha t the IJ o ve rlo ok edcert ai n o f po rti on s o f th e reco rd , th e IJst at edth athe ha d c on si de redPat el ’s do cu m en tary an d t es ti m on ia l ev id en ce an d b as edhi s d eci si on onth e to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces . Furt he rm or e, th e BIA an d IJ bo th di sc us se d asi gn ifi can t p orti on of t he ev id en ce p res en te d b y Pat el , in cl ud in g P at el ’s so n’s al le rg y sym pt om s, the do ct or s’ let te rs , th e si m il ar cl im at e inInd iaan d F lo rid a, th e ab se nc e o f Pat el ’s hu sb an d, the po orhe al th care an d s an it at io n i n In di a, Pat el ’s par en ts ’ he al th is su es , th e fac t tha t Pa te l co ok ed an d d idlau ndry

forhe r pa ren ts , andth e h ard sh ip s tha t Pa te l’s p aren ts an d c hi ldren wou ldface if Pa te l wer e rem ov edto Ind ia . Furt he rm or e, be cau se th e BIA an d IJ were o nl y requi redto rev ie w th e rec or d a s a wh ol e, as op po se d t o a ddres si ng sp eci fic al ly each p ie ce o f ev id en ce, the ir d eci si on s i nd ic at e th at“ th ey ha ve he ard an d tho ug htan d n otm erel y reac te d.” Aya la , 60 5 F .3dat 9 48 . Pat el als o arg ue s tha t the BIA’s an d IJ ’s fact -fi nd in gs un de rlyin g i ts di sc ret io na ry

de te rm in at io n tha t Pa te l’s fa m il y wou ldno t s uf

fer e xc ep ti on al an d ex tre m el y un us ua l h ard sh ip were s o fl awedas t o c on st itut e a rev ers ib le erro r of law. W e fi nd , ho wev er, tha t thi s ar gu m en t d oe s n otrai se a rev ie wab le leg al qu es ti on , bu t ra th er i s an att em ptto ch al le ng e th e BIA’s an d IJ ’s di sc ret io na ry ha rd sh ip de te rm in at io n, o ve r whi chwe ha ve no juri sd ic ti on . 4PETI TI ON DENI ED IN PART, DIS MIS SED I N PART.

5