# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 2- 12 06

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Dan ie l Be njam in So to -Ro qu e

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Peti ti on er

v.

Eric H. Hold er, J r., Att or ne y Gene ral of t he Uni te d S ta te s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Resp on de nt

__ __ __ __ __ __

Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of a Fin al Orde r of th e Bo ard of I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Sep te m

be r 20 , 20 12 Fil ed : No ve m

be r 30 , 20 12 [Unp ub li sh ed ]

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re MELLOY an d B ENTON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es , and BAKER, Dis tri ct Ju dg e. 1

__ __ __ __ __ __
BAKER, Dis tri ct Ju dg e.

Dan ie l So to -Ro qu e pe ti ti on s fo r rev ie w of th e Bo ard of Im m ig rat io n App eal s’ (BIA) de ci si on af

f irming th e Im

m ig rat io n Ju dg e’s (IJ ) de ni al of Mr. So to -Ro qu e’s

The Hon or ab le Kris ti ne G. Bak er, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1 Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s, s it ti ng by des ig na ti on

.ap pl ic at io n fo r c a n cel la ti on of rem ov al un de r th e Im m ig rat io n an d Nati on al it y Act (“ INA”) § 24 0A( b)

, 8 U.S.C. § 12 29 b( b)

. Thi s Co ur t’s juri sd ic ti on is go ve rn ed by
INA § 24 2, 8 U.S.C. § 12 52
, as am en de d by th e REAL ID Act of 200 5, Pub

. L. No.
10 9- 13
, Div

. B., 11 9 St at

. 23 1 (Ma y 11
, 20 05 ), whi ch co nf ers ex cl us iv e juri sd ic ti on
up on th e co ur ts of ap pe al s fo r rev ie w of al l fin al rem ov al or de rs

. Thi s Co ur t de ni es th e p et it io n.

Mr. So to -Ro qu e, a na ti ve an d ci ti zen of Mex ic o, fir st en te red th e Uni te d St at es in 19 94 wit ho ut ad m is si on or pa ro le

. Alt ho ug h he es ti m at es th e nu m be r of in ci de nt s

an d di sp ut es whe n th ey oc cu rred

, he ad m it s he ha s be en ap pr eh en de d an d ret ur ne d

to th e bo rd er se ve ral ti m es si nc e hi s fir st e n t r y in to th e Uni te d St at es in 19 94

. On Aug us t 1, 20 07
, th e Dep art m en t of Hom el an d Secu rit y in it ia te d rem ov al pr oc ee di ng s, is su in g a Not ic e to App ear an d ch arg in g hi m wit h rem ov ab il it y as an al ie n pr es en t in
th e Uni te d St at es wit ho ut ad m is si on or pa ro le

. See INA § 21 2( a)(6 )(A)(i ), 8 U.S.C. § 11 82 (a)( 6) (A)(i ). At a pr el im in ary rem ov al he ari ng , Mr. So to -Ro qu e ad m it te d th e fact s al le ge d bu t so ug ht can cel la ti on of rem ov al un de r INA § 24 0A( b)

, 8 U.S.C. §
12 29 b( b)

, an d vo lu nt ary de pa rtu re in th e al te rn at iv e un de r INA § 24 0B (b ), 8 U.S.C. § 12 29 c(b ). The IJ de ni ed Mr. So to -Ro qu e’s ap pl ic at io n fo r can cel la ti on of rem ov al

an d or de red Mr. So to -Ro qu e rem ov ed fro m th e Uni te d St at es to Mex ic o. Mr. So to

Ro qu e ap pe al ed to th e BIA, whi ch di sm is se d hi s app eal on Decem be r 22
, 20 09
, bu t

r e man d e d t h e c as e to th e IJ fo r hi m to is su e req ui red ad vi sa ls in hi s de ci si on

. O n

rem an d, be fo re th e IJ , Mr. So to -Ro qu e m ad e an ora l m ot io n t o a dm it ne w e vi de nc e in co nn ect io n wit h hi s ap pl ic at io n fo r can cel la ti on of rem ov al

. The I J r e fu se d to
al lo w th is m ot io n. Mr. So to -Ro qu e ap pe al ed th is ru li ng to th e BIA, whi ch di sm is se d
it on Decem

be r 28
, 20 11

. The BIA den ie d can cel la ti on of rem ov al an d gr an te d Mr.
So to -Ro qu e’s req ue st for vo lu nt ary de pa rtu re.

-2

-Mr. So to -Ro qu e ap pe al s th e BIA’s or de r de nyin g hi s ap pl i c at io n fo r

can cel la ti on of rem ov al

, arg ui ng a vi o l a t i o n of hi s du e pr oc es s rig ht s an d a

m is ap pl ic at io n o f la w. 2

An ap p l i can t fo r can cel la ti on of rem ov al m us t m eet al l fo ur el ig ib il it y
req ui rem en ts set for th in 8 U.S.C. § 12 29 b( b) (1 ), whi ch st at es :

The Att or ne y Gen eral m ay can cel rem ov al of

, an d ad jus t to th e st at us of

a n a li en la wfu ll y ad m it te d fo r pe rm an en t res id en ce, an al ie n who is
in ad m is si bl e o r de po rta bl e fro m th e Uni te d S ta te s i f th e al ie n-

(A) ha s be en ph y si cal l y p r e s e nt in th e Uni te d St at es fo r a co nt in uo us
pe rio d of no t le ss th an 10 y ears im m ed ia te ly pr eced in g th e da te of su ch

ap pl ic at io n;

(B) h as be en a pe rs on of g oo d m or al ch arac te r du rin g s uc h p eri od ;

(C) ha s n o t b e e n co nv ic te d of an of fen se un de r se ct io n 11 82 (a)( 2)

, 12 27 (a)( 2) , or 1 22 7( a)(3 ) of th is ti tl e, su bjec t t o p arag rap h (5 ); a nd

(D) es ta bl is he s th at rem ov al wou ld res ul t in ex cep ti on al an d ex tre m el y

un us ua l ha rd sh ip to th e al ie n's sp ou se , pa ren t, or ch il d, who is a ci ti zen

Mr. So to- Ro que doe s not ad dr es s th e BIA’s vo lu nt ary de pa rtu re de te rm in at io n 2 in th is ap pe al

. He refe rs in hi s Pet it io n to “ Age nc y ” de ci si on s, refe rri ng co ll ect iv el y to th e BIA an d IJ as th e Age nc y

. “ Onl y th e BIA or d e r i s s u bjec t to ou r rev ie w, in cl ud in g th e IJ ’s f

in di ng an d reas on in gs to th e ex te nt th ey were ex pr es sl y ad op te d by the BIA.” Fo fan ah v. Go nz al es , 44 7 F .3d 10 37 , 10 40 (8t h C ir. 2 00 6)

.

-3

-of th e Uni t e d S t a te s or an al ie n la wfu ll y ad m it te d fo r pe rm an en t

res id en ce.

The de ci si on to gr an t can cel la ti on of rem ov al i s a d is cret io na ry act by th e Att or ne y Gen eral whi ch th is Co ur t m ay n ot rev ie w. 8 U.S.C. § 12 52 (a)( 2) (B);
Gom ez-P erez v. Hol de r, 56 9 F.3 d 37 0, 37 2 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). W e ret ai n 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

. 8 U.S.C. § 12 52 (a)( 2) (D); Gul ed

v. Mu ka se y , 51 5 F.3 d 87 2, 88 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ). W e al so po ss es s juri sd ic ti on to

“ rev ie w th e no nd is cret io na ry de te rm in at io ns un de rlyin g a de ni al of an ap pl ic at io n fo r

can cel la ti on of rem ov al

, ‘suc h as th e pr ed ic at e le ga l qu es ti on whe th er th e IJ pr op erl y
ap pl ie d th e la w to th e fact s in d e t e rm in in g an in di vi du al ’s el ig ib li ty.’ ” Pi no sGon zal ez v. Mu ka se y , 5 19 F.3 d 43 6, 43 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (q uo ti ng Gul ed , 5 15 F.3 d

at 88 0)

. W e ha ve cau ti on ed “ th at a pe ti ti on er m ay no t crea te juri sd ic ti on by cl oa ki ng

an ab us e of di s cret io n arg um en t in co ns ti tu ti on al or le ga l ga rb .” Garci a-To rres v. Hol de r, 66 0 F.3 d 33 3, 33 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (in te rn al ci ta ti on s an d qu o t a t i o n marks

om it te d)

.

The BIA affi rm ed th e IJ an d de te rm in ed th at Mr. So to -Ro qu e fai le d to sa ti sf y
two of th e req ui rem en ts of 8 U.S.C. § 12 29 b( b) (1 ). Sp eci fic al ly, th e BIA de te rm in ed
th at he fai le d to sa ti sf

y th e req ui rem en ts th at he be ph y si cal ly pr es en t in th e co un try
fo r a co nt in uo us pe rio d of te n y ears an d th at he es ta bl is h th at 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 h ard sh ip to a qu al ifyin g p ers on

.

Mr. So to -Ro qu e arg u e s t h a t th e BIA co m m it te d rev ers ib le le ga l erro r an d
vi ol at ed hi s rig ht to du e pr oc es s in fai li ng to fo ll ow pr eced en t an d in ap pl y in g an inc or re ct le gal st an da rd fo r de te rm in in g whe th er hi s ch il dr en an d pa ren ts wou ld suf fe r

ex cep ti on al an d e x tre m el y un us ua l ha rd sh ip if he were rem ov ed

. Sp eci fic al ly, he

m ai nt ai ns th e BIA weig he d hi s pa ren ts ’ fai lu re to pe ti ti on fo r hi s en try as a ne ga ti ve fact or whe n hi s in el ig ib il it y fo r le ga l en try sh ou ld ha ve be en po si ti ve

. He al le ge s th e

-4

-IJ an d BIA fai le d to co ns id er ha rd sh ip fact or s reg ard in g hi s pa ren ts an d two da ug ht ers

th at ha ve be en co ns id er e d i n ot he r BIA de ci si on s. He al so al le ge s th e BIA sh ou ld
ha ve co ns id ered th at Mex ic o is a vi ol en t pl ace, an d he al le ge s th at th is f act or in crea se s th e ha rd s h i p th at hi s da ug ht ers wil l face if rem ov ed to Mex ic o. He al so
arg ue s th at th e BIA fai le d to ag gr eg at e th e fact or s

. I n ad di ti on , Mr. So to -Ro qu e al le ge s th at th e BIA co m

m it te d re ve rs ib le leg al erro r by fa il in g to ap pl y th e co rrec t
le ga l st an da rd to th e req ui rem en t th at he be ph y si cal ly pr es en t in t h e c ou nt ry fo r a

co nt in uo us pe rio d of te n y ears

. He al so as se rts th at th e BIA erre d as a m at te r of la w

an d vi ol at ed hi s rig ht to du e pr oc es s un de r th e Fi fth Am en dm en t by refu si ng to al lo w hi m to pr es en t n e w ev id en ce rel ev an t to hi s cas e on rem an d. He co nc ed es th at hi s
pr of fer of ne w ev id en ce pe rta in ed pr im ari ly to hi s co nt in uo us ph y si cal pr es en ce in th e Uni te d St at es , bu t he m ai nt ai ns th at su ch ev id en ce al so wou ld ha ve im pa ct ed hi s cred ib il it y

an d i n t ha t way affect ed th e IJ ’s har ds hi p fi nd in g a s wel l.

The Gov ern m en t co nt en ds th at Mr. So to -Ro qu e se ek s to ev ad e th e pr oh ib it io n
ag ai ns t ap pe ll at e rev ie w of th e BIA’s di sc ret io na ry de ci si on to de ny can cel la ti on by

r e c a st in g hi s ev id en ti ary arg um en ts as co ns ti tu ti on al an d le ga l on es

. Thi s C o u r t

ag rees

.

W e ad dr es s fi rs t M r. So to -Ro qu e’s ch al le ng es to th e h ard sh ip de te rm in at io n, in cl ud in g hi s arg um en ts reg ard in g hi s pa ren ts ’ fai lu re to pe ti ti on fo r hi s en try an d hi s in el ig ib il it y fo r le ga l en try, cert ai n ha rd sh ip fact or s r e g a r d i n g hi s pa ren ts an d two
da ug ht ers , an d th e co nd it io ns in Mex ic o. Des pi te Mr. So to -Ro qu e’s ch arac te riz at io n of th es e ch al l e n g e s t o th e BIA’s ha rd sh ip de te rm in at io n as co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m s or
qu es ti on s of la w, whe n pr op erl y cas t, hi s c h a l l e n g e s are th at th e BIA fai le d to

co ns id er or weig h cert ai n fact or s pr op erl y in it s ha rd sh ip de te rm in at io n. W he th er th e BIA “ im pr op erl y weig he d t he fact or s i n t he pro pe r ba la nc in g tes t” do es no t p res en t

a qu es ti on of la w; it “re a l l y c ha ll en ge s th e di sc ret io na ry co nc lu si on of th e BIA.”
So li s v. Hol de r, 64 7 F.3 d 83 1, 83 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ). The arg um en t th at th e IJ an d BIA

ap pl ie d an in co rrec t le ga l st an da rd by fa il in g to co ns id er ad eq u a t el y cert ai n fact or s

-5

-th at ha ve be en co ns id ered in ot he r BIA deci si on s is a ch al le ng e to th e di sc ret io na ry

co nc lu si on of no t m eri ti ng a fav or ab le ex erci se of di sc ret io n an d “ is 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.” Gom ez-P erez , 56 9 F.3 d at 37 3 (q uo ti ng Mer az-R ey es v. Gon zal es , 43 6 F.3 d 84 2, 84 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (p er cu ria m )).

Mr. So to -Ro qu e al so can no t es ta bl is h th is Co ur t’s juri sd ic ti on by cl ai m in g th e BIA co m m it s l e g a l e r r or by fai li ng to acco un t fo r th e cu m ul at iv e effe ct of th e ha rd sh ip s pr es en te d. G a r c i a

- To rres , 66 0 F.3 d at 33 8. A fai lu re to acco un t fo r th e

cu m ul at iv e effe ct of th e ha rd sh ip s pr es en te d “ act ua ll y co ns ti t u t e s a di sc ret io na ry de ci si on ba rred fro m ap pe ll at e rev ie w,” no t an in co rrec t le ga l st an da rd as Mr. So to

Ro qu e co nt en ds . Id.

Mr. So to -Ro qu e can no t st at e a cl ai m fo r a vi ol at io n of du e pr oc es s rig ht s ba se d

on th e ha rd sh ip de te rm in at io n. Can cel la ti on of rem ov al is a d i s c r e ti on ary rem ed y

ov er whi ch th e ex ecu t i v e br an ch ha s un fet te red di sc ret io n. Gul ed , 5 15 F.3 d at 88 0 (ci ti ng INS v. Yan g, 51 9 U.S. 26
, 30
, 11 7 S

. C t

. 3 5 0, 13 6 L.Ed.2 d 28 8 (1 99 6) ).

“ Bec au se ad

jus tm en t of st at us am ou nt s to a po wer to di sp e n s e mer c y , an al ie n can ha ve no co ns ti tu ti on al ly pr ot ect ed li be rty in te res t in su ch sp ecu la ti ve rel ie f an d

can no t st at e a cl ai m fo r a vi ol at io n of du e pr oc es s rig ht s.” Gul ed

, 51 5 F.3 d at 88 0 (ci ti ng Etch u- Njang v. Go nz al es , 40 3 F .3d 57 7, 5 85 (8t h C ir. 2 00 5) ; Nati vi -Go m ez

v. Ash cro ft, 34 4 F.3 d 80 5, 80 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 03 )). “ The fai lu re to rece iv e di sc ret io na ry ad jus tm en t-o f-s ta tu s re li ef d oe s n ot co ns ti tu te th e de pr iv at io n of a co ns ti tu ti on al lypr ot ect ed li be rty int eres t.” Nat iv i-Go m ez, 3 44 F.3d at 8 08

.

W e ne xt ad dr es s Mr. So to -Ro qu e’s Fi fth Am en dm en t du e pr o c e s s ch al le ng e
to th e BIA’s ref

u s a l t o p e rm it hi m to pr of fer ne w ev id en ce rel ev an t to hi s cas e on

rem an d. Mr. So to -Ro qu e co nc ed es th e pr of fere d ev id en ce is rel at ed pr im ari ly to hi s

co nt in uo us ph y si cal pr es en ce b u t a r gu es it wou ld ha ve im pa ct ed hi s ov eral l
cred ib il it y an d, th eref

or e, im pa ct ed t he ha rd sh ip de te rm in at io n. Howev er, th e BIA

-6

-de ni ed Mr. So to -Ro qu e’s req ue st fo r can cel la ti on of rem ov al ba se d on hi s fai lu re to

es ta bl is h eit he r co nt in uo us ph y si cal pre se nc e or ex cep ti on al an d ext rem el y un us ua l
ha rd sh ip sp eci fic al ly be cau se Mr. So to -Ro qu e fai le d to m eet hi s bu rd en of pr oo f, no t
b e c a u se of a la ck of cred ib il it y

. Mr. So to -Ro qu e ha s no co ns ti tu ti on al ly pr ot ec t e d
li be rty or pr op ert y in te res t in th e di sc ret io na ry rel ie f of can cel la ti on of rem ov al

, an d
he can no t es ta bl is h a du e pr oc es s rig ht in th e pr oc eed in gs to ob ta in th at rel ie f. Pi no sGon zal ez, 5 19 F.3d at 4 41

.

Mr. So to -Ro qu e m

us t m eet al l req ui rem en ts un de r 8 U

. S

. C

. § 12 29 b( b) (1 ).

Bec au se we la ck juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th e BIA’s de te rm in at io n th at Mr. So to -Ro qu e fai le d to sa ti sf

y th e req ui rem en t th at he es ta bl is h th at remo v al wou ld res ul t in

ex cep ti on al an d ex tre m el y un us ua l ha rd sh ip to a qu al ifyin g pe rs on , we ne ed no t reac h
th e m eri ts of M r. So to -Ro qu e’s rem ai ni ng arg um en ts

.

Thi s Co ur t i s s t a t ut or il y ba rred fro m rev ie win g th e BIA’s di sc ret io na ry

co nc lu si on to de ny ca nc el la ti on of rem ov al , a nd Mr. So to -Ro qu e ha s no t i de nt ifi ed

a co ns ti tu ti on al cla im

or l eg al qu es ti on th at pe rm it s t he Co ur t t o re ta in juri sd ic ti on

.

Fo r th es e rea so ns , we den y Mr. So to -Ro qu e’s pe ti ti on for rev ie w.

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

-7

-