FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 7, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 13 82 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 29 -8 33 -9 03 HADASSA CHANERO, 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, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll 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

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Jun e 7 , 20 11 ) Befo re EDMONDSON, PRYOR an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM:Had as saCh an ero , a na ti ve an d c it iz enof I sr ael , see ks rev ie w of the ord er o f

th e Bo ardof I m

mig rat io n Ap pe al s (B IA) s umm ari ly affirm in g t he Im m ig rat io n Ju dg e’s (IJ ) or de r de nyin g h er ap pl ic at io n fo r can cel la ti onof r em ov al un de r 8 U.S.C. § 1 22 9b (b )(1 ). In h er p et it io n fo r rev ie w, Cha ne ro arg ue s tha t the IJ d id no t ap pl y th e co rrec t l eg al st an da rdforde te rm in in g t he lev el of h ard sh ip requi red to gra nta can cel la ti on of r em ov al an d t ha t h er due pro ces s ri gh ts were v io late d a s a res ul t o f th e IJ ’s dec is io na l p ro ces s an d t he BIA’s su m m ary affi rm an ce. Bec au se we co nc lu de th atwe lac k juris di ct io n o ve r th e due pro ces s cl ai m , we di sm is s thi s pa rt o f th e p et it io n. We den y Ch an ero ’s pet it io n a s i t re la te s t o t he ha rd sh ip cla im . Ch an ero las t en te redth e Uni te d S ta te s i n Au gu st20 01 as ano ni m m ig ran t an d re m ai ne d b ey on d t he ex pi rat io n d at e o f he r vi sa . She was s erv edwith ano ti ce to ap pe ar, ch arg in g h er as rem ov ab le un de r 8 U.S.C . § 1 22 7( a)(1 )(B) . At he r rem ov al he ari ng , Chane ro reque st edcan cel lati onof r em ov al onth e g ro un d t ha t he r rem ov al wou ldcau se anex cep ti on al an d e xtrem el y un us ua l h ard sh ip to he r two U.S.-cit iz enso ns . Cha ne ro tes ti fie d tha t s he ha d b eeninth e Uni te d S ta te s si nc e 1 99 2 a ndwas d iv or ced . Her two so ns , age s 1 7 a nd12 , di d n otwantto lea ve th e Uni te d S ta te s, an d a ltho ug h the y co ul d l iv e wit h t he ir f

athe r, th ey

pre ferr edto rem ai n wi th th ei r m ot he r. Ch an ero st at edth atsh e fea redhe r ol de stso n wo ul d b e

2fo rcedto joi n t he Isr ael i arm y if h e wen t t o Is rael an d t ha t h er y ou ng er s on ha d be enexpe rie nc in g t ro ub le insch oo l s in ce the imm ig rat io n p ro ceed in gs be ga n. At a s ub se qu en t h eari ng , th e IJfoc us edth e h ard sh ip in qu iry onth e fac t tha t th e b oys wou ldbe for cedin to m il it ary se rv ic e in Isr ael . The IJ no te d t he hi gh st an da rdrequi redto fin d a n e xc ep ti on al an d e xt rem el y unus ua l h ard sh ip bu t ex pl ai ne d t ha t s he was b ou ndby thi s s tand ardev enif s he di sa gr eedwith i t. Acco rd in gl y , th e IJde ni edcan cel la ti on of r em ov al , fin di ng th atalt ho ug h C ha ne ro sa ti sf ie d t he fir stth ree c rit eri a – co nt in uo us ph y si cal pre se nc e, no st atut ory ba r, an d g oo d m or al ch arac te r – s he fai le d t o m eetth e h ig h s ta nd ardof e xc ep ti on al an d ex tre m el y un us ua l h ard sh ip to a qu al ifyin g re la ti ve . Ch an ero ap pe al edto th e BIA, wh ic h s umm ari ly affirm ed . Cha ne ro th en pe ti ti on edth is co urt fo r rev ie w. As an in it ia l m at te r, we is su edjuri sd ic ti on al qu es ti on s t o d et erm in e whe th er ou r juri sd ic ti on was l im it edun de r 8 U.S.C . §§ 12 52 (a)( 2) (B) and(a)(2 )(D). Hav in g re cei ve d t he pa rti es ’ res po ns es , we con cl ud e th at , altho ug h 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 2( a)(2 )(B) pre cl ud es ou r juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w a hard sh ip de te rm in at io n fo r a can cel la ti on of r em ov al , to th e ex te ntCh an ero ass ert s tha t the IJ app li edan in co rrec t l eg al st an da rdforde te rm in in g h ard sh ip , sh e rai se s a l eg al qu es ti on th at we m ay rev ie w un de r 8 U.S.C . § 1 25 2 (a )(2 )(D). Frec h v . U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 49 1 3F.3 d 1 27 7, 1 28 1 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) . Howev er, b ecau se Ch an ero ’s con st itut io na l due

pr oc es s cl ai m

ha s n o m eri t, we l ackjuri sd ic ti onto rev ie w th e p et it io n wi th res pe ct to th is cla im . Se e Gon za le z- Oro pe za v. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 32 1 F .3d13 31 , 13 33 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) (ho ld in g t ha t a c on st itut io na l cl ai m with n o m eri t i s n otsubjec t t o ap pe ll at e rev ie w). I. Can cel la ti on of R em ov al Sta nd ard W e rev ie w th e IJ ’s leg al de te rm in at io ns de no vo . Herna ndezv. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 51 3 F .3d13 36 , 13 39 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). The Att orne y

Gene ral ha s the di sc ret io n t o c an cel th e rem ov al of a no n- pe rm an en t re si de ntali enwho ha s (A) be enco nt in uo us ly, ph y si cal ly pres en t i n th e Uni te d S ta te s fo r no t l es s tha n t eny ears , (B) b eena pe rs on of g oo d m or al ch arac te r, (C) n otbe enco nv ic te d o f cert ai n l is te d o ffen se s, an d (D) est ab li sh ed ex cep ti on al an d e xt rem el y un us ua l h ard sh ip to a qu al ifyin g re la ti ve . 8 U.S.C. § 1 22 9b (b ). The “ ex cep ti on al an d e xt rem el y unus ua l h ard sh ip ” st an da rd , whi ch was est ab li sh edby leg is la ti onen act edin19 96 , is “ hi gh er tha n t he ‘ ex tre m e ha rd sh ip ’ st an da rdun de r th e p rev io us su sp en si on of d ep orta ti on pro vi si on .” Gon za le z- Oro pe za , 32 1 F .3dat 1 33 2, 1 33 3. Acco rd in g t o t he BIA, “ th e h ard sh ip to anali en ’s rel at iv es . . . m us t b e subs ta nt ia ll y

be y on d t he ord in ary ha rd sh ip th at wou ldbe ex pe ct edwhen a cl os e fam il y m em be r le av es th is co un try.” In re 4Mon re al -Agu in ag a , 23 I.&N. Dec. 5 6, 6 2 (B IA 20 01 ) (quo ta ti onom it te d) . This

st an da rdrequi res th atcan cel la ti on of r em ov al sh ou ldbe “ li m it edto ‘ tru ly ex cep ti on al ’ si tu at io ns ,” bu t al th ou gh th e st an da rdis hi gh , itis “ le ss th an ‘unc on sc io nabl e.’” Id. at 60 , 62 . Hav in g re vi ewedth e rec or d, we co nc lu de th atth e IJid en ti fie d a ndap pl ie d th e co rrec t l eg al st an dardinth is cas e. The IJ rep eat ed ly ide nt ifi edth e ex cep ti on al an d e xtrem el y

un us ua l h ard sh ip st an da rdan d m ad e ap pr op ria te co m pa ris on s t o t he pr ev io us st an da rd . The IJ ev encla rif ie d tha t s he wou ldha ve reac he d adi ffer en t co nc lu si on un de r th e lo wer s ta nd ard . There fo re, we co nc lu de th e IJap pl ie d t he pr op er s ta nd ardan d we d en y th e p et it io n i n p artas t o t hi s i ss ue . II. Due Pro ces s “ Inord er t o e st ab li sh a du e p ro ces s v io la ti on , an a li enm us t s ho w th at[s]he was de pr iv edof l ib erty

witho utdu e p ro ces s o f law andth atth e as se rte d e rro r cau se d [h er] subs ta nt ia l p reju di ce.” Gon za le z- Oro pe za , 32 1 F .3dat 1 33 3 (ci ta ti on s o m it te d) . Und er 8 C.F.R. § 10 03 .1(e )(4 ), th e BIA m ay su m m ari ly affirm if t he m em

be r de te rm in es (1) th atth e res ul t was co rrec t; (2) th atan y erro rs were ha rm le ss or n on m at eri al ; an d (3 ) th ateit he r (i ) th e is su es on ap pe al were “ squa rel y co nt ro ll edby exi st in g . . . pre ced en t an d [d id ] no t i nv ol ve th e ap pl ic at io n o f pr eced en t t o ano ve l fa ctua l s itua ti on ,” or(ii ) th e is su es were n otso subs ta nt ia l” 5th ata writ te n o pi ni on was warran te d. Id . “ Thu s, u nd er the reg ul at io ns , no en ti tl em en t t o aful l o pi ni on by the BIA ex is ts .” Gon za le z- Oro pe za , 32 1 F .3dat 13 33 . W e h av e d et erm in edth at , when th e BIA p ro pe rly fol lo ws the reg ul at ory requi rem en ts , a su m

m ary affi rm an ce d oe s n otvi ol at e due pro ces s. Men do za v. U.S. Att ’y Gen . , 32 7 F .3d12 83 , 12 88 -8 9 (1 1th C ir. 2 00 3) . The reco rdhe re re ve al s tha t the BIA co m pl ie d wi th th e reg ul at ory requi rem en ts forth e su m m ary affi rm an ce p ro cedur e. Thu s, the re was no de ni al of du e p ro ces s. Se e Men do za , 32 7 F .3dat 1 28 8- 89 . Mor eo ve r, be cau se Ch an ero ha s fai le d t o e st ab li sh ho w sh e was pre jud ic edby the de ci si on al pro ces s, h er co ns ti tu ti on al cla im

ha s n o m eri t an d we l ackjuri sd ic ti on to rev ie w it . Acco rd in gl y , we di sm is s the pe ti ti oninpa rt a s t o t hi s i ss ue . PETI TI ON DENI ED IN PART; DI SMI SSED I N PART.

6