NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 08- 1681

_____________ A L B IN A C A S T R O , Pet i t i oner v. A tt orneyG eneral of the U nit ed S t at es, R es pondent

_____________ O n Pet i t i on forR evi ew of a D eci s i on and O r derof th e B o a rd o f

Im m ig ra tio n A p p e a ls ( B I A N o. A 73- 166- 744) A r gued J anuary14, 2010 B efore: A M B R O , C H A G A R E S , and S T A P L E T O N , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed A ugus t31, 2010 )

______________ M ar i o A puzzo ( ar gued) L aw O ffi ces of M ar i o A puzzo 185 G at zmerA venue J amesbur g, N J 08831 C ouns el forPet i t i oner2

G r egoryG . K at s as A s s i s t antA tt orneyG ener al C i vi l D i vi s i on T err i J . Scadr on A ssist an t D ir ec tor W endyB enner - L eón ( ar gued) O ffi ce of I m m i gr at i on L i t i gat i on U ni t ed St at es D epartm entof Jus t i ce P. O . B ox 878 B enj ami n Fr ankl i n St at i on W as hi ngt on, D C 20044 C ouns el forR es pondent

______________ OPINI ON O F THE COURT

______________ C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udge. A lbina C astro p eti ti o n s fo r rev iew o f a fin al ord er o f re m o v al i ssu ed b ythe B o ard of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( “B I A ”) . A s expl ai ned bel ow , w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on overher c laim th a t th e Im m ig ra tio n Ju d g e (“ IJ” ) g a v e in su f f icie n t co n sid e ra tio n to c e rta in evi dence , and hol d thatthe I J pr oper l ycons i der ed al l har ds hi p evi dence pr es ent ed cu m u lat ivelyas re q u ir ed . In a d d it ion , w e re ject C astro’s c o n tention that the B IA ’s su m m a rya f

f irm a n c e v io late d th e D u e P ro c e ss C lau se , an d w e f in d h e r c o n ten tio n th a t it v io late d B IA re g u latio n s m o o t. A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill d ism iss th e p e tit io n f o r re v iew in p a rt , a n d d e n yit in p a rt . I. B e c a u se w e w rite s o lelyf o r th e b e n e f

it o f th e p a rties , w e w ill o n lyb rie f ly3

s u m m a ri z e th e e s s e n tia l f a c ts . C as tr o, a ci t i zen a nd nat i ve of M exi co, has r es i ded i n the U ni t ed St at es co n ti n u o u slysinc e 1 9 9 0 . S h o rt lyaf ter en teri n g the U n it ed S tat es, she m arried A lej an d ro C as tr o, w i th w hom s he had tw o chi l dr en. T heyended thei rr el at i ons hi p, al though they have ne verform al l ydi vor ced. S h e late r e n ter e d in to a re latio n sh ip w ith a n o th e r m a n , Ju a n C a rlo s M o rre lle, w ith w h o m sh e h ad a d au g h ter. H er relati o n sh ip w ith M o rrell e e n d ed sh o rt lythere af ter, a lth o u g h M o rr e lle h a s c o n tin u e d to p ro v id e f in a n c ia l s u p p o rtf

o r th e c h ild . C a stro th e n e n ter e d a re latio n sh ip w ith Je su s P a tin o , w ith w h o m sh e c u rre n tly re sid e s. T h e yh a v e tw o c h ild re n to g e th e r, an d P a tin o p ro v id e s f in a n c ial s u p p o rt f

o r b o th chi l dr en, as w el l as C as tr o’ s thr ee c hi l dr en fr om pr i orr el at i ons hi ps . C as tr o and Pat i no o w n a h o m e to g e th e r, f

o r w h ic h th e ys p lit th e d o w n p a ym e n t a n d m o rt g a g e p a ym e n ts . T h e yc u rr e n tly h a v e ap p ro x im a te ly $ 1 1 0 ,0 0 0 in h o m e e q u ity. U pon ent er i ng the U ni t ed St at es , C as tr o w orked as a baby s i tt er , butthen s ought w ork i n a fa ct ory . She i s now empl oy ed i n thatcapa ci tyw i th L or ealU SA , and ea rns appr oxi m at el y$44, 000 pery ear . H erempl oy eral s o pr ovi des heal th car e t o herand her c h ild re n . O n M ay27, 2005, the D epartm entof H om el and Secur i tyi ni t i at ed r emoval pr ocee di ngs agai ns tC as tr o. She w as char ged w i th r emovabi l i tyas an al i en w ho i s pr es ent in th e U n ite d S ta te s w ith o u t b e in g a d m itte d o r p a ro le d in v io la tio n o f 8 U .S .C . §4

1182( a) ( 6) ( A ) ( i ) . C as tr o conce ded thats he i s r emovabl e underthe s t atut e, butappl i ed for ca n ce ll ati o n o f re m o v al un d er 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 2 9 b (b)(1 ). O n J ul y24, 2006, aft ercons i der i ng evi dence pr es ent ed byC as tr o, an I J deni ed her appl i cat i on forcanc el l at i on of r emoval , fi ndi ng thats he had f ai l ed t o es t abl i s h thather r emoval w oul d r es ul ti n “exc ept i onal and extr emel yunus ual ” har ds hi p t o herdepende nt relati v es. C astro a p p ea led th is de cisi o n to the B IA . O n F eb rua ry5 , 2 0 0 8 , the B IA adopt ed and a ffi rm ed the I J ’ s deci s i on w i thouta w r i tt en opi ni on. C as tr o then fi l ed a t i m el ypet i t i on forr evi ew i n thi s C ourt . A ft erfi l i ng herpet i t i on forr evi ew , C as tr o fi l ed a m o tio n f o r r e c o n s id e ra tio n , w h ic h th e B IA d e n ie d in a w ri tte n o p in io n . II. U nder8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) , no courts hal l have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew d e c i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g th e g r a n t i n g o f r e l i e f p u r s u a n tt o § 1 2 2 9 b . Ho we v e r , § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D) pr ovi des an exc ept i on: court s m ayr evi ew B I A deci s i ons i ns ofaras theyr es ol ve co n sti tuti o n al claim s o r qu esti o n s o f law in su ch ca ses. W e h av e re co g n ized this C o u rt ’s author i tyt o r evi ew s uch dec i s i ons , Papageor gi ou v. G onzal es , 413 F. 3d 356, 357- 58 ( 3d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ), b u t h a v e h e ldth a t “[ t]h e ju risd ictio n a l g ra n t o f § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(D ) is n a rro w ly c ir c u m s c ri b e d ,” J a rb o u g h v . A tto rn e yG e n e ra l, 4 8 3 F .3 d 1 8 4 , 1 8 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). C as tr o as s ert s thatthi s C ourthas j ur i s di ct i on overw hats he cl ai m s i s a ques t i on of l aw : w hetherthe I J gave e nough cons i der at i on t o cert ai n fac t s i n det erm i ni ng that C as tr o’ s r emoval w oul d noti m pos e “e xcept i onal and extr emel yunus ual ” har ds hi p uponW e al s o not e thata pet i t i onerm aynotci r cumventthi s j ur i s di ct i onal rul e by 1 r ebr andi ng a cont ent i on thatthe I J orB I A err oneous l yw ei ghed evi dence as a l egal ar gum ent . H er e, C as tr o ar gues thatthe I J ’ s i m pos i t i on of s uch a hi gh bur den t o her cl ai m s of extr eme har ds hi p cons t i tut ed a vi ol at i on of herdue pr oces s r i ght s . W e r ej ect ed a s i m i l arcl ai m i n J arbough. 483 F. 3d at189 ( “W e ar e notbound bythe l abelatt ache d by a partyt o char act er i ze acl ai m and w i l l l ook bey ond the l abelt o anal y ze the s ubs t ance of a cl ai m . ”) . T o the ext entC as tr o cl ai m s thatherdue pr oces s r i ght s have be en vi ol at ed b e c a u s e th e I J a n d BI A f a i l e d t o f i n d th a ts h e e s t a b l i s h e d e x c e p t i o n a l l ya n d e x tr e me h a rd s h ip , w e th e re f

o re la c kju ri s d ic tio n o v e r s u c h a c la im . 5 C as tr o’ s depende nt s . “[C]ourt s have r ecogni zed a r gum ent s s uch as thatan I m m i gr at i on Ju d g e o r th e B IA in c o rre c tlyw e ig h e d e v id e n c e , fa iled to c o n sid e r e v id e n c e o r im p ro p e rly w ei ghed equi t abl e fa ct or s ar e notques t i ons of l aw under§ 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) . ” I d. at189; s ee a l s o Co s p i t o v . Att ’ yGe n . , 5 3 9 F . 3 d 1 6 6 , 1 7 0 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 8 ) ( c h a r a c t e r i z i n g s u c h c l a i ms as “‘ quarr el s overthe exe r ci s e of di s cr et i on and the corr ectnes s of the fa ctual fi ndi ngs r eac hed bythe age ncy ’ ” and hol di ng “thatthes e cont ent i ons do notr ai s e cons t i tut i onal claim s o r qu esti o n s o f law ”) (q u o ti n g E m o k ah v . M u k ase y , 5 2 3 F . 3 d 1 1 0 , 1 1 9 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 8 )) . S in c e “ [ t]h e d e ter m in a tio n o f w h e th e r th e a lien h a s e sta b lish e d th e re q u isite har ds hi p i s a qui nt es s ent i al di s cr et i onaryj udgm ent , ” M endez - M or anche l v. A s hcr oft , 338 F. 3d 176, 179 ( 3d C i r . 2003) , w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o hearC as tr o’ s cl ai m i n s o faras s he cl ai m s thatthe I J i ncorr ect l yw ei ghed orcons i der ed the evi dence pr es ent ed. 1 III . C as tr o cont ends thatthe B I A i gnor ed i t s ow n pr ece dent i al deci s i ons w hi ch s et f o rth th e sta n d a rd f

o r “ e x c e p tio n a l an d e x tre m e lyu n u su a l” h a rd sh ip . In su p p o rt o f th isSee I J ’ s O r al D eci s i on at5 ( “I ti s the t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s thatm us t[be] 2 w e ig h e d in th e f

in a l an a ly sis .”); id . at 6 (“ A ll o f th e se f a c to rs [ m a yb e ] c o llec tiv e ly combi ned t o fi nd [that ] the r equi s i t e har ds hi p ha[s ] been e s t abl i s hed. ”) ; i d. at7 ( “[A ] l l the f a c to rs, th o u g h n o t ex tre m e in th e m se lv e s, m u st b e c o n sid e re d in th e a g g re g a te in det erm i ni ng w hetherthe nec es s aryhar ds hi p exi s t s . ”) ; i d. at14 ( “[W ] hen bal anci ng the t ot al i tyof the ci r cumst ance s , unfortunat el ythi s har dw orki ng m otherof fi ve, can not [es t abl i s h] thats he . . . [has ] demonstr at e[d] exce pt i onal and extr emel yunus ual h a rd s h ip .” ). 6 as s ert i on, s he ci t es t o pr i orB I A deci s i ons hol di ng thatal l har ds hi p fac t or s s houl d be co n side red in the ag g reg ate. Se e, e.g., M att er o f R ec inas , 2 3 I. & N . D ec . 4 6 7 , 4 7 2 (B IA 2 0 0 2 ) ( “ P a rto f

th e a n a l ys i s r e q u i r e s th e a s s e s s m e n to f h a r d s h i p f

a c t o r s i n th e i rt o t a l i ty, oft en t erm ed a ‘ cumul at i ve’ anal y s i s . ”) . C as tr o cl ai m s thatthe I J fai l ed t o cons i derher h a rd s h ip f

a c to rs in th e a g g re g a te . C astro is co rrect th at w e h av e jurisdicti o n to rev iew a c lai m that the IJ o r B IA appl i ed the i ncorr ectl egals t andar d i n eval uat i ng a pet i t i on. See A burt o- R ocha v. M u k a se y , 5 3 5 F .3 d 5 0 0 , 5 0 3 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) (“ T h e B IA ’s r e g u latio n s th e m se lv e s in d ica te thatadher ence t o pr ece denti s a non- di s cr et i onaryact , as theyr equi r e the age ncyt o fol l ow i t s ow n pr ece dent s exce ptt o the ext enttheyar e modi fi ed oroverrul ed bythe B I A orthe A tt orneyG ener al . ”) . H ow ever , i n thi s cas e, i ti s cl earthatthe I J appl i ed the corr ect s t andar d i n eval uat i ng the evi dence pr es ent ed byC as tr o. T he I J expl i ci t l ys t at ed n u m e ro u s tim e s th a t th e h a rd sh ip f a c to rs w e re b e in g e v a lu a ted c u m u lativ e ly , a n d th e re is 2 no evi dence i n the r ecor d thatthe I J fai l ed t o do s o. W e ther efor e hol d thatthe I J appl i ed th e c o rr e c t s ta n d a rd , a n d C a s tr o ’s p e titio n f o r r e lie f o n th e s e g ro u n d s w ill b e d e n ie d .7 I V. C as tr o al s o cl ai m s thatthe B I A vi ol at ed i t s ow n pr ocedur es by“s tr eaml i ni ng” her ca se w h en h er a p p ea l w as d ec ided in the fo rm o f a su m m aryaf firm an ce o f th e IJ’s deci s i on i ns t ead of

the i s s uance of a w r i tt en dec i s i on. She cl ai m s thati n doi ng s o, herdue pr oces s r i ght s w er e vi ol at ed. T hi s C ourthas j ur i s di ct i on overchal l enges t o the cons t i tut i onal i tyof B I A deci s i ons under8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) . Papageor gi ou, 413 F. 3d at358. “W e have pl enaryr evi ew overcons t i tut i onal chal l enges t o i m m i gr at i on p ro c e d u re s .” D ia v . A s h c ro f t, 3 5 3 F .3 d 2 2 8 , 2 3 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). T his C ou rthas on nu m erous occasi on s ent ert ai ned and rej ect ed such cl ai m s, hol di ng thatthe s tr eaml i ni ng of the i m m i gr at i on appea l s pr oces s does notvi ol at e the al i en’ s due pr oces s r i ght s . See Papage or gi ou, 413 F. 3d at359 ( “[D ] ue pr oces s chal l enges to s u c h s u m m a ry B IA a f f irm a n c e s a re w ith o u t m e ri t.” ); s e e a ls o D ia , 3 5 3 F .3 d a t 2 4 5 . W e w i l l ther efor e hol d thatthe B I A ’ s s um m aryaff i rm ance of the I J ’ s opi ni on di d not dep ri ve C astro of d ue p rocess and den yher pet i t i on for r eview on these grou nd s. In a d d iti o n to h e r d u e p ro c e ss c laim , C a stro a lso c laim s th a t th e B IA v io late d its o wn r e g u l a t i o n s b ys tr e a ml i n i n g h e rc a s e . As a n i n i t i a l ma tt e r , we n o t e th a tth e r e i s s o me a u th o rityf

o r th e p ro p o sitio n th a t th e B IA ’s d e c isio n to in terp re t it s o w n re g u latio n s to a llo w s tr e a m lin in g o f

c a s e s is d is c re tio n a ry, a n d w e la c kju ri s d ic tio n to h e a r s u c h a c a s e . See M art i nez- M al donado v. G onzal es , 437 F. 3d 679, 683- 84 ( 7th C i r . 2006) ; Fal con C arr i che v. A s hcr oft , 350 F. 3d 845, 854 ( 9th C i r . 2003) . B uts ee Tse gayv. A s hcr oft , 386W e s peci fi cal l ynot e thatC as tr o’ s chal l enge i n herpet i t i on forr evi ew i s t o the 3 B IA ’s a f f irm a n c e w ith o u t an o p in io n , an d n o t th e a f f irm a n c e b ya sin g le m e m b e r. W h ile C astro h as sin ce raised the issu e o f w h ethe r th e B IA ’s de cisi o n to h av e a sing le m em b er, a s o p p o s e d t o a th r e e - me mb e rp a n e l , r e v i e w th e I J ’ s d e c i s i o n wa s i n v i o l a t i o n o f i t s o wn r egul at i ons , s he fi r s tdi d s o i n herm ot i on forr econs i der at i on, and has fi l ed no pet i t i on for re v iew o f

th e B IA ’s d e n ial o f

th a t m o tio n w ith th is C o u rt. S in c e th a t issu e is n o t p ro p e rly b e f o re u s in th is ap p e a l, w e d o n o t a d d re s s it in th is O p in io n . F .3 d 1 3 4 7 , 1 3 5 4 -5 5 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ) (d isa g re e in g w ith th e N in th C irc u it’s re a so n in g in F a lc o n C a rr ic h e ). H ow ever , i n the ca s e curr ent l ybefor e us , w e nee d notdeci de the i s s ue of juri sd ict ion , b ec au se C astro’s c lai m is m o o t. C astro’s c h all en g e is t o the B IA ’s aff i rm ance of the I J ’ s deci s i on w i thoutan opi ni on, buts i nce s he fi l ed herpet i t i on for 3 r evi ew , the B I A i s s ued a w r i tt en opi ni on i n hercas e i n r es pons e t o herm ot i on for r econs i der at i on. Si nce i tw as the l ack of a w r i tt en opi ni on bythe B I A w hi ch form ed the bas i s of C as tr o’ s cl ai m thatthe B I A fai l ed t o fol l ow i t s ow n pr ocedur es bys tr eaml i ni ng herappea l of the I J ’ s deci s i on, and a w r i tt en opi ni on has s i nce be en i s s ued, w e w i l l deny C a s tr o ’s c la im o n th e s e g ro u n d s a s m o o t. V. F o r th e se re a so n s, th e p e tit io n f o r re v iew is d ism iss e d in p a rt a n d d e n ied in p a rt.