## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H

C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 0- 38 29

__ __ __ __ __ _ Vict or Cas ti ll o- Cas ti ll o, *

* Pet it io ne r, *

* Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of a n Ord er o f

v. * th e Bo ard of I m m ig rat io n
* App eal s. Eric H. Hold er, J r., Att or ne y Gene ral * of th e Uni te d S ta te s, * [UNPUBLISHED]

* Res po nd en t. *

__ __ __ __ __ _
Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 15 , 20 11 Fil ed : Apr il 3, 2 01 2

__ __ __ __ __ _ Befo re SM ITH, COLLOTO N, and GRUENDER, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _

PER CURI AM.

The Dep art m en t of Hom el an d Secu rit y (“ DHS”) arg ue d t h a t Vict or Cas ti ll oCas ti ll o, a ci ti zen of Mex ic o, was rem ov ab le as “ [a ]n a l i e n pr es en t in th e Uni te d
St at es wit ho ut be in g ad m i t t ed or pa ro le d,” 8 U.S.C. § 11 82 (a)( 6) (A)(i ). An im m ig rat io n judg e (“ IJ ”) con cl ud ed th at Cas ti ll o- Cas ti ll o was rem ov ab le ; ho wev er, th e IJ gr an te d Cas ti ll o- Cas ti ll o’s req ue st fo r can cel la ti on of rem ov al un de r 8 U.S.C. § 12 29 b( b) (1 ), fin di ng th at Cas ti ll o- Cas ti ll o’s rem ov al wou ld res ul t in “ ex cep ti on al

an d e xt rem el y un us ua l ha rd sh ip ” to hi s fiv e m in or ch il dr en , wh o a re ci ti zen s o f th e Uni te d St at es , du e to se pa rat io n fro m Cas ti ll o- Cas ti ll o, “ th e si gn ifi can t care gi ve r an dpr ov id er fo r th em .” The DHS ap pe al e d
, an d th e Bo ard of Im m ig rat io n App eal s (“ BIA”) va cat ed th e IJ ’s g r a n t of can cel la ti on of rem ov al
, fin di ng th at Cas ti ll oCas ti ll o “ fai le d to de m on st rat e th at hi s rem ov al wou l d r e s ul t in ex cep ti on al an d

ex tre m el y un us ua l ha rd sh ip ” to hi s ch il dr en

. The BIA rem an de d fo r Cas ti ll o- Cas ti ll o
to ap pl y fo r vo lu nt ary de p a r t ur e. Cas ti ll o- Cas ti ll o no w pe ti ti on s fo r rev ie w. W e di sm is s t he pe ti ti on for

lac k o f juri sd ic ti on

.

The Gov ern m en t arg ue s th at we la c k ju ris di ct io n to he ar Cas ti ll o- Cas ti ll o’s
pe ti t i o n f o r two in de pe nd en t reas on s: (1 ) th ere is no fin al or de r be cau se th e BIA

rem an de d t he m at te r to th e IJ fo r Cas ti ll o- Cas ti ll o to ap pl y fo r vo lu nt ary de pa rtu re,

an d (2 ) th e de te rmi n a t i o n a s to “ ex cep ti on al an d ex tre m el y un us ua l ha rd sh ip ” to Cas ti ll o- Cas ti ll o’s ch il dr en un de r 8 U.S.C. § 12 29 b( b) (1 )(D) is di sc ret io na ry an d no t

su bjec t to jud ic ia l rev ie w. Ass um in g wit ho ut de ci di ng th at th ere is a fin al or de r, we

c o nc lu de th at we la ck juri sd ic ti on ba se d on th e se co nd gr ou nd as se rt e d b y t h e Gov ern m en t.

“ [A]lth ou gh we la ck ‘j ur is di ct io n to rev ie w th e di sc ret io na ry de ni al of

can cel la ti on of rem ov al un de r § 12 29 b,

. . . we ha ve juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w

co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m s or qu es ti on s of la w rai se d in a p e t i t io n fo r jud ic ia l rev ie w.’ ” Gomez -Per ez v. Hol de r , 56 9 F.3 d 37 0
, 37 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (s eco nd al te rat io n in

or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Pin os -Go nz al e z v

. M u ka se y , 5 19 F.3 d 43 6, 43 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 )). Add it io na ll y , we “ po ss es s juri sd ic ti on to ‘revi ew th e nondisc re tio na ry de te rm in at io ns

un d e r l yi n g a de ni al of an ap pl ic at io n fo r can cel la ti on of rem ov al
, su ch as th e
pr ed ic at e le ga l qu es ti on whe th er th e IJ pr o p erl y ap pl ie d th e la w to th e fact s in de te rm in in g an in di vi du al ’s e li gi bi li t y.’” Id

. (q uo ti ng Pin os -Go nz al ez , 5 19 F.3 d at 43 9) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

.

C a s t il lo -Cas ti ll o arg ue s th at “ th is cas e is ab ou t a le ga l st an da rd
, no t ab o u t di sc ret io n.” Howev er, Cas ti ll o- Cas ti ll o “ m ay no t creat e juri sd ic ti on by cl oa ki ng an ab us e of di sc ret io n arg um en t in co ns t i tu ti on al [o r le ga l] ga rb .” Gar ci a- To rr es v.

-2

-Hol de r , 6 60 F.3 d 33 3, 33 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) ( q u o t in g Gar ci aAgu il lo n v. Muk

as ey , 52 4 F

. 3 d 8 4 8, 84 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 )) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s

om it te d)

. Cas ti ll o- Cas ti ll o se ts fo rth in fo rm at io n reg ard in g hi s rel at io ns hi p wit h hi s ch il dr en , th e su pp o r t h e p r o v i d es fo r th em , an d ho w hi s rem ov al wil l res ul t in hi s in ab il it y to se e so m e of hi s ch il dr en fo r an ex te nd ed du rat io n, or ev en “ pe rm an en tl y .” Cas ti ll o- Cas ti ll o as se rts th at th ere is a “ be ll cu rv e” up on whi ch th ere is a “ ti pp in g
po in t

. . . whe re th e fact s of th e cas e p l a c e it in to th e cat eg or y of ex cep ti on al an d

ex tre m el y un us ua l ha rd sh ip .” Thi s ch al le ng e to th e BIA’s “ de te rm in at io n th at th e

ev id en ce fail ed to sh ow an ‘ ex tra or di na ry an d ext rem el y un us ua l hard sh ip ’” ta rg et s

“ pr eci se ly th e di sc ret io na ry de te rm in at io n th at Co ng res s sh ie ld ed fro m ou r rev ie w.” Se e Mer az -Reye s v. Gon za le s , 43 6 F.3 d 84 2, 84 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 0 6 ) ( p e r c ur ia m ); se e al so Gar ci a- To rr es , 6 60 F.3 d at 33 8 (“ [T]his Co ur t la ck s juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w t he
BIA’s ha rd sh ip de te rm in at io n be cau se , whi le Pet it io ne r at te m pt s to pr es en t hi s is su es

as qu e s t i o n s of la w, th e ha rd sh ip de te rm in at io n act ua ll y co ns ti tu te s a di sc ret io na ry de ci si on ba rred fro m

ap pe ll at e rev ie w.”).

Cas ti ll o- Cas ti ll o al so as se rts th at th e BIA fai le d to co ns id er rel ev an t pr eced en t

an d t h a t t h e B I A ’s de ci si on th eref or e fai ls to de m on st rat e th at “ it ha s he ard an d th ou gh t an d no t m erel y reac te d.” Bar ra ga n- Verd uz co v. INS
, 77 7 F.2 d 42 4, 42 6 (8 th Ci r. 19 85 ) (q uo ti ng Osu ch uk wu v. INS
, 74 4 F.2 d 11 36
, 11 43 ( 5 t h C i r

. 19 84 )).
Co un se l fo r Cas ti ll o- Cas ti ll o ack no wled ge d du rin g or al arg um en t th at he rece nt ly

m ad e a si m il ar argu m en t i n a no th er ca se be fo re t hi s co ur t. Se e So li s v. Hol de r , 64 7 F.3 d 83 1, 83 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ), cer t. de ni ed
, 56 5 U.S. ---, 13 2 S. Ct

. 10 32 (2 01 2)

. In So li s , we co nc lu de d th at th e co nt en ti on “ th at th e BIA ap pl ie d th e in co rrec t le ga l

st an da rd by fai li ng to ad eq ua te ly co ns id er cert ai n fact or s th at th e BIA ha s co ns id ered rel ev an t in ot he r de ci si on s” was real ly a ch al l e n g e to th e BIA’s di sc ret io na ry de te rm in at io n t ha t was no t s ub ject t o re vi ew. So li s , 64 7 F .3d at 83 3. W e rea ch th e

sa m e co nc lu si on he re.

-3

-Fo r th es e reasons, w e la ck j ur is di ct io n an d th eref or e di sm is s Cas ti ll o- Cas ti ll o’s
pe ti ti on for rev ie w.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-4

-