F o l l o w i n g a r e fe r e n d u m v o t e o n M a y 2 1 , 2 0 0 6 , M o n t e n e g r o ’s 1 Parli am ent declare d ind epend ence f rom Serbia on J une 3, 2006. Serbia rec o g nized M ontenegro’ s independ ence and declar ed (co n tin u ed ...) 

## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 07

- 3883 Z VO NK O S TEP AN O V IC, P etitio ner, v. M AR K R. F ILIP, A cti ng Attor ney Gener al ofthe U ni ted S tat es, R es pond ent
.

On Pe tition fo r Review o f anOrd er of the Bo ard of Immigration App eals

. No . A 79-766- 597
A RGUED O CT OB ER 20, 2008

— D ECI DE D J AN UA RY 28, 2009

Befo re B AUER, K ANN E , a nd W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges . K ANN E , Cir cu i tJudg e . Zvo nko St epanovi c i s a ci ti zen o fS erbi a an d M o nt en eg r o who f aces rem o va lfr o m the 12 N o. 07

- 3883

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 an end to the union ofthe two st ates
. O n J une 28 , 2006, M on ten eg ro b eca m e a m em b er state o f the U nited N atio ns. T he se ev en ts occu rred a fter th e im m igr atio n ju d g e’s ord er in the pr oc ee di ngs be l ow, al though th ey do n otaffec tour an aly sis i n th is ap p eal. U nited States. H e seeks revie w of an order of the B oard of I m m i gr ati on Ap peal s decl ar i ng hi m i nel i gibl e for cancel l ati on o f rem ova lpursuant to the b att er ed spouse provi si on o fthe I m m i gr at ion a nd N ati onal i ty A ct § 24 0A( b) ( 2) , 8 U. S. C. § 1 22 9b ( b) ( 2)
. The g o ve r nm en t co ntends tha t th i s co ur t l ac k s j ur i sdi ct i o n t o r ev i ew the BIA’s deter m i nati on that St ep anovi c was not subj ecte d to “e xt r eme cruelty ” unde r § 1 22 9b ( b) ( 2)
. W e ag r ee a nd concl ud e that 8 U .S. C. § 1 252( a) ( 2) pre vents us fro m ex er ci singj ur i sdi ct i o n o ve r the BI A’s de te r m i na ti o n. Acco r di ng l y, we di smi ss the pe ti ti o n.

I. B ACK GR OUN D St ep an ov ic w as b o r n i n a re gio n of th e fo rm er R ep u b lic ofYugosl avi a that i s no w i n Serb ia. In 19 93, he m ar ri ed S i l va na S i m i c, a nd the t wo mov ed to S o uth Afr i ca . The coupl e had o ne chi l d, K ri stina, befor e obtaini ng an am i cab le d ivo rc e in 19 96 . Silva n a a n d K r i s t i n a re m ain ed in So uth A fri ca unti l19 97, and theynow l i ve i n Fl or i da. On S eptem ber 30, 1997, the U ni ted St ate s a dm i tte d St epanovi c as a no n-i m m i gr ant v i si torwith a uthor i zati on to re m ai n f ora peri od n ot t o exceed s i x m onths. H e be

-N o. 07

- 3883 3

On M ar c h 1 , 20 03 , the I N S c ea s ed t o e xi s tas ani ndepe nden t 2 agency, and the D ep art m ent ofH om el and Sec urity ass um ed its fu nc tion s. ca m e a se l f

- empl o y ed cr o ss-coun try t r uckdr i ve r a nd l i ved i n Ch i cago . In 1998 , S tepanovi c m et So nj a J ova novi c, a U. S
. c i ti zen wor k i ngi n a S erbi anr es ta ur an t, a nd the tw o bega n dati ng. S te pan o vi c r em aine d i n the Uni te d S ta te s pas t th e author i zed s ix

- m onth t i m e per i od, and i n 200 2, i m m i gr ati o n a u th o r i t i e s d e t a i n e d h i m i n S p o k a n e , Wa s h i n g t o n. On M ay 8, 2002 , the I m m i gr ati on an d N atur al i zati on Se rv i ce so ught t o re m ove hi m f orbeing i n the U ni ted

2 States i ll egally, pu rsu an t to 8 U
. S. C
. § 1227 (a)( 1)(B)-( C )( I ). S te pan o vi c r etur ne d t o Chi ca g o a fte r b eingr el ea se d o n a b o nd

. A pp ro xi m ate l y o ne m onth l ate r, S tepanovi c m ar ri ed J ova novi c and m ove d i nto her Ch i cago apar tm ent. A t a hear ing be f or e a n i m m i gr ati on j ud ge i n J anuary20 03, S t e p a n o v i c c o n c e d e d r e mo v ab i l i t y, b u ta ta l a t e r h e a r i ng i n J uly, he s tat ed that he would se ek re li effro m r em ova l be ca us e o fhi s m ar r i ag e to a Uni te d S ta te s ci ti ze n. In N ove m ber20 03, S tepanovi c r etur ned fr om a l ongdi st an ce t r uck i ngtr i p, expe ct i ngJ o va no vi c to pi ckhi m up wher e he ty p icall y pa r k ed. S he f ai l ed to a ppea r, a nd he s pe ntthe n i g hti n hi s t r uc k

. S t e pa no vi c r e c e i v e d a r i de hom e fro m a fri en d t h e next day, o nl y t o fi nd that J ova novi c had l ock ed hi m o ut o f t h e a partm ent. W hen sh e fi na l l y a ns wer ed th e do o r, s he ap p ea r ed an g r y a nd w oul d not l et hi m ente r. S he hande d h i m two bag s o f4 N o. 07

- 3883

The I J a lso f ound thatSt epanov ic f ail ed to dem onst rat e a 3 v iab le m arr iag e an d tha t Step an ov ic’ s d au g hte r w as no t a q u a lify in g re la tiv e u n d er th e st a tu te , 8 U .S .C
. § 12 2 9 b (b )(2), b eca u se she w as no t a law ful p erm an en t resid en t. cl othe s a nd to l d him to l eave , threat eni ng to cal lthe pol i ce i fhe di d not. J ova novi c neve r al l owed S tepanov i c ba ck i nt o the a pa r t men t, a nd the t wo e v e ntua l l y di v o r c e d. At a he ar i ngi n Oc tobe r 2 00 4, S te panovi c i nf o r m ed th e IJ tha t he a nd J o v a no v i c ha d s e pa r a t e d a nd tha t he now i nt e nd e d t o p e t i t i o n f o r c a nc e l l a t i o n o fr em ova l

. On Decem ber5, 20 05, th e IJ hel d a hear i ng o n the m er i ts of St epanovi c’ s a pp l i cati on f orcance l lat ion ofr em ova lf or b a t t e r e d s p o us e s wh o h a v e b e e n s u bj e c t e d t o “ e x t r e me c ru elt y, ” pursuant to 8 U.S
. C. § 1 229b (b) ( 2)
. In additi on t o thea fo r e men t i o ne d fa cts, S tepanovi c pre sente d evi dence that J ova novi c be c am e invol ved w i th ano therm an d u rin g t h eir m ar ria ge an d m ay h av e b ee n u n f a i t h fu l. St epa no v i c s t a t e d tha th e h e a r d fr o m f r i e nd s that J o va no vi c l at ermar r i ed th i s sa m e m an . St epanovi c co n c ed ed that he was neverbat ter ed or subj ecte d to physi calhar m , but he cl ai m ed that he suffer ed m entaland em oti onaldi str ess as a re sul t o fthes e e vents , the det er i or ati on o fhi s m ar ri age , J ova novi c’ s conti nued r efus al to r etur n hi s pho ne ca l l s, an d o cc as i o na l l y seeing he r i n pub l i c wi tha no th erm an . At the c o nc l us i o n o fthe he ar i ng, the IJ de ni ed S te pan o vi c’ s appl i ca ti o n b ec au se he f ai l ed to m eethi s bur den ofpro off orcance l l at i on o f r emov al, i nc l udi ngtha t he di d not establ i shtha t hi s ex w i fe s ubj ecte d him to “e xtre m e cruel ty. ” T h e IJ gr anted 3 Step an ovic’s al tern ative requ est for vol un tary d ep artu reN o. 07

- 3883 5

an d d es ign at ed Sou th A fri c a a s t h e c ou n tr y of re m ov al. S t e p a n o v i c a p p e a l e d th e IJ ’ s d e c i s i o nt o th e B I A. On Oc tober 31 , 2 00 7, the BI A di smi ss ed hi s appe al

. The BI A ag r ee d wi ththe IJ that Ste pan o vi c f ai l ed to de m o nst ra te that he w as subj ecte d t o extr em e cruel ty by h is spo us e unde r § 1 22 9b ( b) ( 2)
. The BI A hel d tha t “[ i ] n l ight o fthi s det er m i na ti on, w e nee d no t r ea chthe o th era r g um ents ra i sed o n appeal r ega rdi ng the o therel i gibi l i ty c rit er ia for ca n c ella tio n of re m ov al.”

II. A NA LYSIS St epano v i c a pp e a l s the BI A’ s de c i s i o n tha t he f a i l e d t o prove thathe was s ubj ecte d to extr em e cruel ty. Because th e B I A un d ertook an i nd ep en d en t review of th e record a n d d i d n o tr e l y e x c l u s i v e l y o n th e IJ ’ s fi n d i n g s , we review the B I A ’s dec isi on d irectly an d not that of th e IJ. P eralta -C a brera v. Go nz a les , 5 01 F.3d 837, 843 (7th C ir. 2007). St ep an ovi c al so cl ai m s that the BI A i ncor re ctl y a l ter ed the l ega lst andard f ores tabl i shi ng ext re m e cruel ty by re quir i ng psychi atr i c o r m edi calev i dence t hat hi s e m oti onalsuffer i ng r ose to the l eve lo fextr em e cruel ty.

A
. B a t t e r e d S p o u s eP r o v is i o n o f th eINA U nde r the I N A’s b at te r ed spo us e pr o vi si o n, the “ Att orn ey G en er al m ay ca n c el re m ov a l ” o fan alien w h o is o th e r wi s e r e mo v ab l e i fth e p e t i t i o n e r e s t ab l i s h e s t he el em ents of8 U
. S. C. § 1 229b ( b) ( 2) , i ncl ud i ng tha t he “has been b att er ed orsubj ecte d to extr em e cruel ty by a s pouse6 N o. 07

- 3883

A n app li cant f or canc el lat ion of rem oval und er § 1229b(b) ( 2) 4 al s o m us tdem ons t ra t e ( 1) physical pr es en c e f or a c ont i nuous per i od ofno tl es s thanthr ee ye ar s i m m edi at el y p rece di ng the a p p l i c a t i o n ; ( 2 ) g o o d mo r a l c h a r a c t e r d u r i n g s u c h p e r i od ; ( 3) thathe or she is not i nad m is sible or dep ortable und er other prov is ions and h a s not been convict ed of an aggrav ated felony ; an d ( 4) that re m ov al w ou ld r esu lt in e xtrem e ha rd ship to th e a lie n, hi s ch ild , or h is p a re n t. 8 U .S.C . § 1 2 2 9 b (b )(2)(A )(ii)-(v ). orpare nt wh o i s o r w as a U n ite d State s ci ti zen. ” Id. § 1229 b(b)(2)( A )( i) (I ). 4 Congre ss has not defined “extr em e cruel ty” o r provi ded a l eg als ta nda r d f o r de te r m i ni ngi ts e xi st en ce f o r the pu rpos es of§ 1229 b( b) ( 2)
. H owever, the DH S prom ulg ate d a r egul ati on that per m i ts a ba tte re d spouse o fa ci ti ze n o r l aw ful perm anent r esi dent to se l f

- peti ti on f oradj ustm ent o fst atus, and i t defi nes “ batt er y o r extr em e cruel ty” as i ncl ud i ng, but not l i m i ted to : bei ng the vict i m o fany act orthr eat ened acto f vi ol ence, i ncl ud i ng anyf or ceful detenti on, wh i ch re sul ts orthr eat ens t o res ultin p hysi calor m ental i nj ur y . P s y c ho l o g i c a lo r s e xu a lab us e o r e xp l o i tati o n, i nc l udi ngr ape , mol es ta ti o n, i nc es t ( i fthe vi cti m i s a m i nor ) , o r f or ced pros ti tuti on s hal lbe co ns i der ed ac ts o f vi o l en ce . Othe r abus i ve a ct i o ns ma y a l s o b e a c t s o fv i o l e n c e u n d e r c e r t a i n c i r c u msta nces, i ncl ud i ng acts that, i n and o fthem sel ves, m ay not initiall y a p p ear viol en t b ut th at are a pa rt ofan o ver al lpatte rn o fvi ol ence. 8 C
. F.R. § 204.2(c)( 1)(vi ).N o. 07

- 3883 7 B as ed o n t h e st at u te a n d th e D H S re gu lat ion, Ste p an ov ic ass er ts that hi s e x-wife’ s co nd uct and the deteriorat i on ofthei r m ar ri age r esul ted in e m oti onaland m ental inj ury an d cons titute d extrem e cru elty un d er § 1229 b(b)(2).

B. Jur i s di ct i on U nde r8 U
. S. C. § 1252 ( a) (2) B e f o r e r e a c h i n gth e me r i t s o fS t e p a n o v i c ’ s cl ai ms , we m ust hav e j uri sdic ti on to re vi ew the BIA’s deter m i nati on that St epanovi c f ai l ed to dem onst ra te extr em e cruel ty. Congre ss has del ega ted m any i m m i gr ati on deci si ons to th e A tt or n ey G en er al, an d in s o d oin g h as ex p re ss ly ci rcum scr ibed ourj uri sd ictio n to r evi ew cer tain j ud gm en ts
. See 8 U .S.C . § 12 52 (a)( 2); Khan v
. M ukasey, 51 7 F. 3d 513, 517 ( 7th Cir
. 2008 )
. The applica b le j uri sdic

ti onalpro vi si on, enti tl ed “Den i al s o fdi scr eti onar y r el i ef, ” pro vi des: N otw i thsta nd i ng any othe r provi si on of l aw . . . an d e xc epta s pr o vi d ed i n s ubpa r ag r aph( D) , a nd re gar dle ss ofwh etherthe j ud gm ent, d ecis i on, o r acti o n i s m ade i n r emov alpr o ce eding s, no cou rt shal l have j uri sdic ti on t o re vi ew

— ( i ) a ny j udg m en t re ga rd in g t h e g ra n tin g of re lief u n d er se c tio n . . . 12 29 b

. . . of th is t itle

. . . . 8 U
. S. C
. § 1252(a)(2) (B). Step an ovic seeks reli ef un d er § 1229b , so w e m us t turn to the e xc ept i o n t o the j ur i sdi cti o n- r emov alpr o vi si o n, fou n d in s u b p ar ag ra p h (D ), w h ich st at es : N othi ng in subparag ra ph ( B) o r ( C), o r i n any othe r pr o vi si o n o fthi s ch apt er( o th ertha n thi s se ct i o n) w hi ch l i m i ts or el i m i nates j ud i ci alr evi ew , shal lbe8 N o. 07

- 3883 const rue d as prec l ud i ng r evi ew o fco nsti tuti onal cl ai m s o r questi ons ofl aw r aised up on a peti ti on f o r r e v i e w fi l e d wi th a n a pp r o pr i a t e c o urt of appe al s i n a cc o r dan ce wi ththi s se ct i o n. 8 U. S
. C. § 1 25 2( a) ( 2) ( D)
. Thu s, re adingthe two pr o vi si o ns to g ethe r, we m ayno t r ev i ew the BI A’s de ci si o n t o de ny an al i en’ s a pp licat i on f orcance l l ati on o fr em ova lunder § 1 22 9b u n les s t h e a lien p re se n t s a co n st itu tio n al c laim o r qu e s t i o n o fl a w. S te pan o vi c m ak es t wo s epa r at e ar g um en ts
. F i r st, he as se rt s t h at th e B IA ’s d et er m in at ion of ex tr em e c r u e l t y is non- disc re ti onar y, an d i s there f or e a r evi ew abl e deci si on outsi de the sco pe of§ 12 52( a) ( 2) ( B). S eco nd , he a rgues th atthe BI A al tered the l eg als ta nda r d f o r e st ab l i sh i ng extr e me c r ue l t y, whi c h he s t a t e s s ho ul d c o ns t i t ut e a r ev i ewabl e que st i o n o f law. W e addr es s ea cha r g um en t and find bo th unpersuas i ve.

1. D iscretio na ry Na ture o f the E xtrem e C ruelty D e term i nat i on St epanovi c fi rs t urges u s to find that the extrem e cruel ty d et er m in at ion is n o n -d isc re tio n ar y a n d th er efo re w ith in our j uri sdic ti on t o re vi ew . The governm ent di sag re es, ar gu ing that the dete rm i nati on i s di scr eti onar y a nd not re vi ew abl e. Con g r es s di d no t defi ne the phr as e “a ny j udg m en t re gar ding the g ran ting ofr el i ef” forthe pu rpos es of § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( i )
. T h e s t a t ut e i s c l e a r th a t, a ta min i mu m, w e m ay not re vi ew any disc re ti onar y dete rm i nati on re gard in g re lief u n d er § 12 29 b

. Se e, e . g. , M a rtinez -M a ldonadoN o. 07

- 3883 9 v. G o nz a les , 437 F. 3d 679, 682 ( 7th Cir
. 2006) (“[ Se cti on 125 2( a) ( 2) ( B) ] b ar s j udi ci alr ev i ew o fa l ldi sc r et i o nary deci si ons ofthe A tt or ney Gener alm ade i n i m m i gr ati on c as es , w ith a few ex c ep tio n s . . . . ”); C evil la v. G o nz a les , 446 F. 3d 658, 66 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) ( “[ W ] hi l e the purp ose o f the doo r- cl osing st atute appears to be to pla ce di s cre t i onary rul i ngs b eyo nd the pow ero fj ud i ci alr evi ew ( hence the ca pti on o fsubse cti on ( B)) , the sta tute i tse l f, r ead l i ter al l y, go es furtherand pla ces al lr ulings othe r than thos e r eso l vi ng q u es ti ons ofl aw o r const i tuti onali ssues beyon d the p ow er of j ud ici al review
. ” (em p ha sis add ed ))
. S ubs ec ti o n ( D) o fthe j ur i sdi ct i o na lstatu te r es to r es o ur j uri sdic ti on t o re vi ew o nl y c onst i tu tio nalcl ai m s o r quest i o n s o fl a w. See 8 U
. S. C
. § 1252(a)(2) (D). W e hav e interprete d the phras e “ questi ons ofl aw ” t o perm i t j ud i ci al re vie w of on ly “ p u re ”q u es tio n s o f law

. Se eVi rac a ch a v. M uk a sey, 51 8 F.3d 51 1, 51 5 (7th C ir . 2 00 8); C evil la , 44 6 F
. 3d at6 61 ( ex pl aini ngtha t Con g r es s i nt en ded “to di st i ng ui shb etwee n ‘ statut o r y - co ns truct i o n que st i o ns ’ a nd

‘ f actualquesti ons’ and to per m i t j ud i ci alr evi ew o n l y o f answ er s to the f or m er ”)
. A “pure” questi on of law ari ses i n “ si t u a t i o n s i n wh i c h a c a s e c o me s o u t o n e wa y i ft he Consti tuti on o r sta tute m eans one thi ng, and the othe r w ay i f i t m eans som ethi ng di ffer ent. ” Virac ac ha , 51 8 F
. 3d at 515. The r efo r e, f ac tu alo r di sc r et i o na r y de te r m i na ti o ns d o not const i tute re vi ew abl e quest i ons ofl aw under § 1252 (a)( 2)(D). Se eLeguizam o-M e di na v. G o nz a les , 49 3 F.3d 772 , 774 (7th C ir. 2007); Cevill a , 44 6 F
. 3d at 661. This cour t has no t pr evi ousl y a dd re sse d our j uri sdic ti on to r ev i ew a n IJ ’ s ex tr eme c r ue l tyde te r m inatio n fo r the10 N o. 07

- 3883

Leyva a nd K harkhan we r e bo th de c i de d b e f o r e § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( D) 5 bec am e effective in M ay 20 05 , as par tofthe Rea l I D A c tof 20 05 , Pub. L. No. 10 9- 13 , 11 9 S t at
. 23 1, 3 10 . T he addi t i on of § 1 25 2( a) ( 2) ( D) , ho wever, di d notaf fectour ho l di ng thatthe BIA ’ s de te rm inat ion of“ex cepti onal and ext rem el y unu sual ha rd ship ” is no t sub ject to jud icial rev iew acco rd ing to § 12 5 2 (a )(2)(B ). S ee M i rel es , 433 F. 3d at 968- 69. pu rpos es of§ 1229 b( b) ( 2)
. W e hav e, however, hel d repeat

edl y that a n anal ogo us i ssue i s not subj ect to j ud ici al r ev i ew: whethe r a n ali enwi l ls uffer“ ex ce pti o na la nd extr em el y unusualhar dship” in ord er to o btain cancel l atio n of re m ov al u n d er § 12 29 b (b )(1)
. See M ar t i nezM al dona do , 43 7 F
. 3d at 682 (“O u r C ou rtand others have c o nfi r med tha tthe a pp l i c a t i o n o f[ § 1 2 5 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( B) ] s t r i ps us ofj uri sdic ti on in dis cre tion ar y c ancel l ati on o fr em ova l case s.”) ; M ireles v. G o nz a les , 433 F. 3d 965, 968 ( 7 t h Cir. 20 06) (“W e l ac kj ur i sdi ct i o n t o r ev i ew [ pet i ti o ne r ’ s] c o ntenti on that the age ncy shoul d hav e exer ci sed di scr eti on i n h i s f av o r [ unde r § 1 22 9b ]
. . . . Thi s i s true whethe r the al ien’s a rgum ent i s that the ag ency abused i ts disc re ti on o r tha t i t fai l ed to c o nduc t a th o r o ug h r ev i ew o fthe record

. ” (ci tations om itted )) ; Leyva v. A shcroft, 38 0 F
. 3d 303, 3 0 7( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) ( “ T h e me a n i n go f8 U
. S
. C. § 1 252( a) ( 2) ( B)( i ) i s cl ear : w e m ay not re vi ew the Attorney Gen er al ’ s j udg m en t r eg ar di ngwhethe r o r nott o g r an t can cellati on ofr e m oval un d er 8 U
. S. C
. § 1229b (b)( 1). ”); Kharkha n v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 601 , 604 (7th C ir. 2003). 5 S te pan o vi c has notpr es en te d a c o nv i nc i ngr ea so n why the e xtre m e cruel ty deter m i nati on unde r § 1 229b ( b) ( 2) sh o ul d b e tr ea te d d iffer en tly tha n “ ex ce pti o na la nd extr em el y unusual ” har dship und er § 1229 b( b) ( 1)
. BothN o. 07

- 3883 11

ar e s u bj ec t t o th e jur i s d ict ion -re m ov al p ro vis ion in § 1252 (a)( 2)(B), and Step an ovic i s ch all en ging th e B I A ’s f a c t u a lfi n d i n g s , i t s a p p l i c a t i o n o ftho se f a c t s t o th e l a w, and i ts exer ci se ofdi scr eti on in d en yin g r el i efunder § 1229 b(b)(2). W e lack j urisd iction to review th e se d eterm i nati on s, j ust a s we m ay not re vi ew si m i l ari ssues u n d er § 12 29 b (b )(1)
. Se e, e . g. , M ireles , 43 3 F
. 3d at 968. F ur the r mor e , thr e e o fthe f o urc i r c ui t s tha th a v e a ddr es se d thi s pr ec i se questi o n h av e he l d tha t th e extr em e cruel ty deter m i nati on i s disc re ti onar y and n ot su bj ec t to jud icia l rev iew
. See R a m da ne v . M uk a sey, N o. 07

- 4064, 2 00 8 U.S
. A pp . LEX I S 2035 6, at* 4 ( 6th Ci r. S ept. 25 , 2008 ); Wilm o re v . Go nz a les , 455 F. 3d 524, 528 (5th Cir. 2006); P erales-C um p e a n v . Go nz a les , 429 F.3d 977, 982 (10th Cir. 2005 ). B u t se e Her nand ez v. Ashcroft, 34 5 F
. 3d 824, 83 3- 35 (9th C ir. 2003). I n Peral e s - Cum pe an , the Tenth Cir cui t e xp lain ed thata non- disc re ti onar y deci sion i s o ne “forwh i ch ther e i s a cl earst andard, and f orwh i ch no evaluati on ofnon- disc re ti onar y c ri ter i a i s r equi re d.” 42 9 F.3 d at 9 82. Conver sel y, a di scr eti onar y dete rm i nati on i s o ne i nvol vi ng “a ‘ j ud gm ent c al l ’ byt h e ag en c y, o r f orwh i ch ther e i s ‘ no a l gori thm ’ o n w h i ch r evi ew m ay be b ase d.” Id. To de te r m i ne whe the r o ne h a s s uffe r e d e xt r e me c r ue l t y, a c o ur tmus tdo m or e than “si m plypl ug[ ] f acts i nto a for m ula

. ” Id. The Fifth Cir cui t a gr eed, co m pari ng the extr em e cruel ty deter m i nati on t o the e xtre m e hardshi p deter m i nati on und er§ 1229 b( b) ( 1) , w hi ch it had al re ady hel d w as disc re ti o na r y b ec au se the t er m was “ no t se l f

- ex pl an at o r y, a nd re as on ab le m en co u ld ea sily d iffer as to [its ] co n st ru c tio n .”12 N o. 07

- 3883 Wilm o re, 4 55 F
. 3d at5 27 ( al te r at i o n i n o r i g i na l ) ( quo ta ti o ns o m i tt ed)

. The S i xth Ci r cui t r ec en tly fo l l o wed s ui t, no ting that i t pr evi ousl y hel d t h at extr em e har dship i s a di scr et i o na r y de c i s i o n no ts ubj e c tt o r e v i ew , and tha ti t“ [ ha d] been gi ven no r eas on t o b elie ve that extr em e cruel ty i s t re ate d differ entl y. ” R a m dane, 200 8 U .S. A p p . L E X IS 2035 6, at* 4. The Ni nth C ircuiti s th e o nl y c i r cui t to ho l d tha t th e ex tr eme c r ue l tyde te r m i na ti o n i s no n- di sc r et i o na r y a nd re vie w ab le. He r nan dez , 3 45 F
. 3d at8 33

- 35
. In Herna nd ez , the c ourtexpl ai n ed t hat “ extr em e cruel ty i nvol ves a questi on o ff act, d ete rm i ned thro ugh the appli cati on o f l e g a ls t a nd a r ds

. ” Id. a t8 3 4
. T h e c o u r tc o mp a r e d e x t r e me cruel ty to deci ding w hetheran a pp l i cant was ba tte re d or wa s a “ hab i t ua l dr un k a r d” ( b o th o f whi c h the N i nth Cir cui t co nsi ders non - disc re ti onar y) , and i t hel d that ex tr em e c ru elt y is a sim ilar ty p e o f “c lin i c al” find in g. Id. The c o ur t al so di st i ng ui sh ed th e ex tr eme cruel tya nd e x t r e me h a r d s h i p d e t e r mi n a t i o n s b y n o t i n gth a te x t r e me hardshi p i s a m or e neb ulo u s st an dard that see ks to separa te thos e a pp l i cants deem ed parti cul ar l y worthy o f cancel l ati on o fr em ova l, wh er ea s ex tr em e cruel ty si m plyes tabl i shes an appli cant’ s s ta tu s as a sur vi voro f d om es tic vio len c e. Id. at83 5. S t e pano vi c ac knowle dges the “a rduous t ask ” o fp e r s ua di ngthi s co ur t to f o l l o w th e N in thCi r cui t’ s vi ew tha t th e ag en cy ’ s ex tr eme c r ue l tyde te r m i na ti o n i s no n- di sc r et i o na r y . ( P e t r . ’ s Br
. 2 4
. ) H i s a s s e s s me n ti s a c c u r a t e . We ag r ee w ith the F i fth, S i xth, a nd Te nth Ci r cui ts tha t th e e x t r e me c r u e l t y d e t e r mi n a t i o n i s d i s c r e t i o n ar y , a n d weN o. 07

- 3883 13

m ay not re vi ew the m ann er in which the BI A exer ci ses its d isc re tio n . See M ireles , 43 3 F
. 3d at 969. A s the Tenth Cir cui t no ted, a n IJ does not deter m i ne extr em e cruel ty by si m plypl uggi ng f acts i nto a for m u la o r applying an alg or ith m . Se ePe r al e s - Cum pe an , 42 9 F
. 3d at9 82
. Ra th er, the IJ m ust determ i ne the f acts o fa parti cul arcas e, m ake a j ud gm ent c al las to wh ethertho se f acts co nsti tute cr ue l ty, a nd, i fs o , whethe r the c r ue l tyr i se s t o s ucha lev el th atit ca n righ tly be d es c rib ed as ex tr em e. St ep an ov ic him se lfacknow l edges that the a gencyposs ess es “unfe tter ed dis cre ti on” i n deci ding w hethera peti ti oner suffer ed extr em e cruel ty. ( Petr
. ’ s Br. 25.) Consequentl y, w e fi nd thatthe extr em e cruel ty deter m i nati on under § 1 229b ( b) ( 2) f al l s with in the j uri sdic ti on- re m ova l s t a t u t e , a n d th u s b e y o n d o u r j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w.

2. TheBIA’s Re q ue s tof M e di ca l orPs yc hi at r i c Evid e nc eof Ha rm St epanovi c al so c l ai m s that the BI A al ter ed the l ega l st an dar d f o r de m o ns tr at i nge xt r eme cru el ty, whi chhe ar gues i s a r evi ew ab le q u es tio n ofl aw under § 1 25 2(a )(2) (D ). Sp ec ifica lly, h e s ta te s t h at th e B IA “r atchet[ ed] up ” the extr em e cruel ty sta nd ar d, w hi ch he a r g ue s i s f o und in 8 C. F
. R. § 2 40
. 2( c) , b y r equi r i ng psychol ogi cal or m edi cal docum entat i on of hi s injury
. St epanovi c ar gues that by so doi ng, the BIA i m posed an u n an n ou n c ed , post hoc st an dar d tha t “ th e BI A kno ws, a nd p ro b ab ly ex p ec ts , pe tit ion er ca n n otm ee t.” As p r e v i o us l y s t a t e d, o urj ur i s di c t i o n i s l i mi t e d t o re vie w o fo n ly “ p u re ”q u es tio n s o f law

. Se eVi r ac ac ha , 51 814 N o. 07

- 3883 F. 3d at 515. A cl ai m o n ap p eal does not beco m e a questi on o fl aw si m ply b ec ause the l i ti gant chara cter i zes i t a s su c h

. See Z a m o ra-M a lla ri v. M uk a sey, 514 F
. 3d 679, 69 4 ( 7th Cir
. 20 08) ( “A peti ti onerm ay not cre ate the j uri sdic ti on th at C on gr es s c h os e t o re m ov e s im p ly b y c loa kin g a n . . . ar gu m en t in co n st itu tio n al g arb .”) (alt er at ion in o rig in al) (qu otations om itted ); L eg u iz a mo-M e d i na , 4 93 F. 3d at 774 (“[O]nly ‘pu re’ l egal qu estions ( as op p o s e d to chara cteri zati ons o r ‘ m i xed’ quest i ons) ar e co ver ed by subsect i on (D ).”); see also X iao JiCh en v. U
. S. D ep’t o f Just ice, 47 1 F
. 3d 315, 33 0 ( 2d Cir. 2006 ) ( rej ecting peti ti oner ’ s a tte m pt to tr an sfo r m a f ac tu alc l ai m i nt o a l eg alque st i o n b y a ss er ting that the IJ f ai l ed to a p p ly the l aw and noting tha t “ [ a] peti ti onercannoto ver com e the l ack ofj uri sdic ti on t o review by i nv ocat ion of su ch rhetoric”). St ep an ov ic’s arg u m en t t h at h e p re se n ts a re vie w ab le questi on o fl aw i s m i sta ken. T he BI A appli ed the cor re ct legal stan d ard

— extr em e cruel ty

— and w e are notautho

r i z e d t o r e v i e w ho w the BI A exer ci sed i ts disc re ti on under th at st an d ar d

. See M ireles , 43 3 F
. 3d at 969. A t its cor e, S te pan o vi c’ s ar g um en t i s “mere l y [ a] qua r r el [ ] o ve r the co r r ec tn es s o fthe f ac tu alf ind ings o r j us ti fi ca ti o n fo r the d isc re tio n ar y c h oic es .” C hen , 4 7 1 F
. 3 d a t 3 2 9
. F u r th er, he ha s no t co nv i nc ed us tha t th e DH S’ s r egul at i o n de fi ni ng ex tr eme cr ue l ty, 8 C. F
. R. § 20 4. 2( c) ( 1) ( vi ) , l i m i ts the BIA’s disc re ti on to su c h an e xtent that i t m ay not re que stps y ch i at r i c o r medi ca le vi den ce s uppo r ting S te p a n o v i c ’ s c l a i ms . T h i s i s p a r t i c u l a r l y s o b e c a u s e he do es no t cl ai m th at he su ffer ed phy si ca l ha r m , an d hi s ex wi fe ’ s c o n d u c ti s n o to bj e ct i v e l y e x t r e me o r c r u e l

. As weN o. 07

- 3883 15 have al re ady st ate d, the e x tr em e cruel ty deter m i nati on is di scr eti onar y. W hi l e the DH S’ s defi ni ti on m ay be h e l p fu lin d e c i d i n gw h e th e r a n a p p l i c a n t s u ffe r e d e x t r e me cr ue l ty, the r egul at i o n itse lf provi des co nsi dera b l e di scr eti on byusi ng the “phrase s ‘ i ncl ud es, but i s no t l i m i ted to ’ a n d ‘ ma y . . . be ac t s o fv i o l e n c e u n d e r c e r t a i n c i r c u msta nces. ’ ” Peral e s - Cum pe an , 429 F.3d at98 4 (a lte ra tio n in or igin al) (q u ot in g 8 C .F.R . § 20 4.2 (c )(1) (vi)); s e e a lso Wilm o re, 4 55 F
. 3d at5 27 (agr ee i ngwi th Peral e s - Cum pe an th a tth e D HSr e g u l a t i o n d o e s n o tr e n d e r th e e x t r e me cr ue l tyde te r m i na ti o n n o n- di sc r et i o na r y )
. Theref o r e, the re gul ati on does not c on str ai n the BIA’s disc re ti on t o suc h an e xtent that the BI A ’ s o rderi n thi s ca se exceeded i ts bounds. F u r th e r mo r e , e v e n i fth e r e g u l a t i o n d e fi n i n ge x t r e me cr ue l tydi d l i m it the BI A’s di sc r et i o n t o s o m e ex te nt, the BI A di d n o thingi n thi s c a s e t o a lter th at defini ti on, nor did the BIA c re ate a new pre re quis i te f orr el i efunder § 1229b(b) ( 2)
. H er e, the BIA did not require psychol ogi cal o r medi ca lev i den ce o fS te pan o vi c’ s i nj ur y wheni t co ncl ud ed that St epanovi c “f ai l ed to es tabl i sh thathe was th e vi ct i m o fe xt r eme c r ue l tyb yhi s ex -w i fe, a nd he faile d to ad eq u a t e l y s u p p or t h is c laim w ith p sy c h iat ric o r m ed ical d ocu m en ts, or o ther ev iden ce w hi ch w ou ld es t ab l i s h th a th i s p s y c h o l o g i c a lo r e mo t i o n a ls u ffe r i ng ro se to th e le ve l of ‘ex tr e m e c ru elt y.’ ” R at h er , th e B IA sim p ly ex p lain ed th at Ste p an ov ic fa ile d to p ro d u c e e viden ce t o meethi s bu rd en of pr o o f, i n pa r t be ca us e he prese nted no m edi calev i dence ofhar m . Requi ring an appli cant t o prove an e l em ent o fhis peti ti on f orcance l l a-16 N o. 07

- 3883 ti o n o fr emov ali s ce r ta i nl y di st i nc t fr o m a l te r i ngthe l ega l fra m ew or k und er w hi ch the appli cant m ay re c ei ve su ch rel ief

. In r e ali ty, Step an ovic ch all en ges th e B I A ’s f a c t u a ld e t e r mi n a t i o n th a th e was n o ts u bj e c tt o e x t r e me cruel ty, and he a tte m pts to r e- chara cter i ze thi s i ssue as a “que st i o n o fl aw. ” Buti t i s no t su cha que st i o n.

III. C ON CLU SI ON S te pan o vi c appe al s th e BI A’s de te r m i na ti o n tha t he did notsuffercr uelty that w as suffi ci entl y e xtre m e t o receive can cellati on of rem oval pu rsu an t to § 1229b (b)( 2). Bec au se thi s det er m i na ti o n f al l s s qu ar ely wi th i n the j u r i s d i c t i o n - r e mo v a l s t a t u t e , a n d S t e p a n o v i c p r e s e n t s no
“ r e v i e wab l e ” que s t i o n o fl a w o r c o n s t i t u t i o n a lc l a i m, we lack j urisd iction to review i t acco rd ing to § 1252(a)(2) (B ). Fo r th e a b ov e re as on s, St ep an ov ic’s p et itio n for r e v i ew is D IS MIS S ED f o r l ac ko fj ur i sdi ct i o n.

1- 28- 09