2004 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
4-14-2004 

# H a mi lt on v . Att y Ge n U S A 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 . 03-3296

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i 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 y ou 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 a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no va U niv e 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 a t or of V i l l a no va U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

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

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it a t ion
" H a mi lt on v

. Att y Ge n U SA" (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 837. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/837NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 03-3296
SYLVE STER HAMILT ON, Petitioner

v. JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTOR NEY G ENERA L OF THE U NITED STATES, Respondent
On Petiti on for Review of an Order of t he Immigrat ion and Natura lization Service Bo ard o f Imm igration Ap peals (BIA No. A43 094 961)
Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

April 13, 2004 Be for e: R EN DE LL , CO W EN and LA Y* , Circu it Judges

(Fil ed: April14, 2004)
OPINI ON OF THE COURT

*Honorable Donald P. Lay , Senior Circuit Judge for the Eighth Cir cuit, sitting by designation.2

LA Y, Circuit

Judge
. Syl vester Hamilton see ks revi ew of a decisi on of the Board of I mmigrati on Appeals (the “Board”) vacat ing the or der of an i mmigrati on judge (“I J”) that removed t he conditi onal basi s of Hamilton’ s lawful permanent resi dent st atus. Because we hold that we l ac k j ur is di ct io n t o r ev ie w th e Bo ar d’ s d ec is io n, we wi llde ny th e p et it io n f orre vi ew.

BACKGROUND Hamilton, a nati ve and citizen of Ja maica, married a United State s citizen on August 16, 1990, and enter ed the Unit ed State s on December 23, 1991, as a lawful per ma nen t resid ent o n a c ond ition al ba sis. See 8 U.S.C. § 1186a( a)(1) . In or der for t he conditi onal basi s of Hamilton’ s lawful permanent resi dent st atus t o be removed, Hamil ton and his wife ha d to fil e a joi nt peti tion for removal of the condition and appear togethe r for a pe rson al int erv iew
. Id. § 1186a(c)( 1). Because a joint petit ion was never fi led, Hami lt on p et itio ned for di sc re ti ona ryre mova l o f t he c ond itio n un der 8 U. S. C. § 1186a(c)( 4), which aut horizes the Attorney Generalto waive the joint fili ng requirement if one of three “hardship” categories i s met. One of the categories allows a waiver of the joint

fili ng requir ement if t

he marria ge was entere d into i n good faith but later term inated , other th an thro ugh death of the spou se, and the alien wa s not a t fault in failin g to file th e join t peti tion
. Id. § 11 86a( c)(4)(B ). An other c atego ry allows a w avier if the marri age was enter ed into i n good faith but duri ng the marri age the al ien spouse was3

subjected to extreme cruel ty by the citizen spous e and was not at fault in fai ling t o file the join t peti tion
. Id. § 1186 a(c)(4)(C). On June 4, 1998, t

he Immigration and Natura lization Service (“ INS”) denied Hamilton’s petit

ion, fi nding that

he did not qua lify

for a waiver of

the joi nt fil ing requir ement. As a r esult , Hamilt on’s condi tionalpermanent r esident stat us was terminated. On June 25, 1998, t he INS served Hamilt on with a noti ce to appear , chargi ng him with bei ng removable because his c onditi onal permanent resi dent st atus had bee n term inate d. Following a hearing i n immigration court , the IJ found that Hamilt on was eligible for awaiver of the joint fili ng requir ement under § 1186a( c)(4) (B) and granted his p etitio n to rem ove the c ond ition al ba sis o f his law ful p erm ane nt re side nt sta tus. The INS appealed to t

he Board. On July

7, 2003, t

he Board sust ained the appeal and vacated t

he IJ’s opinion, concludi ng Hamilton fai led to meet his burde n of establ ishi ng that he entere d into t he marria ge in good fai th. The Board or dered tha t Ha milto n eith er v olu ntar ily dep art f rom the U nited Sta tes o r be rem ove d to Jam aica
. Hamilton petiti oned for revi ew of the Board’s dec isi on.

DIS CUSSI ON We must consider our

juri sdiction over Hamil ton’s pe tition. The Board’ s removal order w as not referred to the Attorne y General fo r review a nd is therefore adm inistrative ly final. Th us, ou r jurisdic tion ov er H amilto n’s pe tition fo r review wo uld1 The phrase “under this subchapter ” refers to subchapter II of Chapter 12 of Tit le 8, wh ich in clud es se ction s 11 51 t hro ugh 137 8. See CDI Info. Servs. , Inc. v. Reno , 278 F.3d 616 , 619 ( 6th C ir. 2002 ). Thu s, the sec tion at issu e in this c ase, § 1 186 a, falls w ithin this subcha pter. 4 aris e under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)( 1), which pr ovides for judici al revi ew of final or ders of removal. However, § 1252(a)( 2)(B)(i i) di vests c ourts of juri sdiction to r eview any “dec ision o r action of the Atto rney G enera l the au thority for w hich is s pecif ied un der this subchapter

to be in t

he discr etion of

the Attorney General , othe r than t he granti ng of reli ef under section 1158(a) of this title. ” Id. 1 Sectio n 11 86a( c)(4) lea ves it to th e A ttorney G enera l’s discre tion w hethe r to remove the condi tionalbasis of an ali en’s l awful permanent resident stat us absent the filin g of a join t peti tion
. Id. § 1186a(c)( 4). St ated another way, the Attorney Generalhas discr etion to grant a “ hardshi p waiver” of the joint fili ng requir ement provi ded the al ien
can dem ons trate , inter alia , tha t “the qualif yi ng marriage was entered i nto in good fa ith. ” Id. In thi s regar d, “[t ]he dete rminati on of what evidence i s credi ble and the weight t o be given that evide nce shallbe within t he sole di scretion of the AttorneyGeneral. ” Id. In this case, t

he Board concluded t

hat Hamilt on was not enti tled to a hardshi p waiver because he had not

met his bur den of demonstrating a good- faith marriage . We conclude that t his d eterm inati on i s a d iscre tion ary de cisio n th at w e m ay no t rev iew
. O ur co nc lu sio n i s s up po rte d b y Mendez-Moranchel v. Ashcroft , 338 F.3d 176 ( 3d Cir. 2003) . In Mendez , we con sidered w hether w e had jurisdiction to rev iew the B oard’s dec ision den ying M end ez’s req ues t for can cella tion of r em ova l un der 8 U .S.C . § 12 29b
.5

Id. at 176. Pursuant to § 1229b, the AttorneyGeneral may cancel t he removal of an a lien if fou r requ ireme nts are met, in cludin g the re quirem ent tha t remo val w ould result in extreme har dship. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b) (1). In Mendez , the Board determined that Me ndez fa iled to meet the h ardship requ irement and denied h is request for discretion ary
can cella tion of r em ova l. Mendez , 338 F.3d at 177. We held tha t we were without jurisdictio n to rev iew th e Bo ard’s d ecision beca use w hethe r an alie n had met th e hard ship req uire me nt w as a disc retio nar y dec ision
. Id. at 179. As in Mendez , the Board determined that Hamilton had not

met the r equirement

of demonstrating that

his marriage was ent ered into in good fai th, e ffecti vely denyi ng Hamilton’s request

for a hards hip waiver unde r § 1186a(c) (4). We conclude that the determi nation of

whether Hamilt on demonstrated the re quirement s for a har dship waiver “is a qui ntesse ntialdiscr etionary judgment. ” Mendez , 338 F.3d at 179. Furthermore, the authori ty to grant

a hardshi p waiver is clear ly within t he discr etion of

the Attorney Ge ner al an d th us f alls s qua rely w ithin the p lain l ang uag e of § 12 52( a)(2 )(B )(ii). Therefore, we lack jurisdi ction to review the Board’s deci sion, and the petiti on for review willbe denied.