A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt o gr antthe part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (f); 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 4 .1 (G )1 0 th C ir . R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T he ca s e i s ther efor e or der ed s ubm i tt ed w i thoutor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s the ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed underthe t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### O ct ob e r11,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C lerk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT M I RI A M J U D I TH TO BA R; J O SE M ANUE L E S P I NOZ A; ADR I ANA ESPI N O ZA M O RA LES,

P et i t i on ers , v. A LB ER TO R. G O N ZA LES, A tto rn e yG e n e ra l,

R e sp o n d e n t. N o. 06- 9506 ( N o. A 78- 889- 265) ( P e t i t i o n fo rRe v i e w)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e O’ BRI EN , P O R F IL IO , and AN DE RS ON , C i rcui tJudg es.

Pet i t i oner s M i r i am Judi th T obar , J os e M anuel E s pi noza, and A dr i ana E s p in o z a M o ra le s a re M e x ic a n c itiz e n s w h o fa c e re m o v a l f ro m th is c o u n try . Pet i t i oner s s eek r evi ew of a Boar d of I m m i gr at i on A ppeal s ( B I A ) deci s i onO n M a rc h 1 , 2 0 0 3 , the IN S c e a se d to e x ist a s a n in d e p e n d e n t ag e n c yw ith in 1 the D epartm entof J us t i ce, and i t s funct i ons w er e tr ans ferr ed t o the D epartm entof (c o n tin u e d ...)

- 2- deny i ng thei rappl i cat i ons forcanc el l at i on of r emoval . Pet i t i oner s cl ai m w e have j ur i s di ct i on underthe R E A L I D A ct , Pub. L . N o. 109- 13, 119 St at . 231, 310 ( 2005) ( pr ovi di ng thatcourt s of appe al s have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s and ques t i ons of l aw ) . A l t ernat i vel y , pet i t i oner s r eques tr ei ns t at ementof vol unt arydepartur e. W e conc l ude the R E A L I D A cthas no i m pacton ourl ack of ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h e B IA ’s d is c re tio n a ry d e te rm in a tio n , i d. ; § 1 2 5 2 (a)(2)(B )(i ), and thatw e l ack author i tyt o r ei ns t at e an e xpi r ed per i od of vol unt arydepartur e, Sv irido v v . A sh c ro

ft , 3 5 8 F . 3 d 7 2 2 , 7 3 1 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) . Ac c o r d i n g l y , we di s m i s s the pet i t i on and denyr ei ns t at ementof vol unt arydepartur e. I . B ackgr ound Pet i t i oner s M i r i am Judi th T obarand J os e M anuel E s pi noza ha ve bee n m a rrie d tw e n ty -fo u r y e a rs. P e tit io n e r A d ria n a E sp in o z a M o ra les is th e ir d a u g h ter . T h e fa m ily , alo n g w ith a n e ld e r so n , E lli o t, en ter e d th e U n ited S tate s in 1993 w i thouti ns pect i on and i s ther efor e s ubj ectt o r emoval . T obarand Espi noza al s o have ay oungers on, D ani el , w ho w as born i n thi s countryaft ertheyent er ed and i s ther ebya U ni t ed St at es ci t i zen. I n 1994, T obarappl i ed foras y l um t o the I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Servi ce ( I N S) , butherappl i cat i on w as deni ed. O n N ovember13, 2003, the D epartm ent of H om el and S ecuri ty (D H S ) i nit i at ed rem ov al proceed i ng s agai nst 1( . . . cont i nued) 1 H o m e l a n d S e c u r i ty. Ferr y v. G onz al es , 4 5 7 F . 3 d 1 1 1 7 , 1 1 2 1 n . 1 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ).

- 3- pet i t i oner s byfi l i ng N ot i ces t o A ppear( N T A ) , char gi ng them as r emovabl e under 8 U . S. C . § 1182( a) ( 6) ( A ) ( i ) forhavi ng been pr es enti n the U ni t ed St at es w i thout b e in g a d m itt e d o r p a ro led . P e tit io n e rs s o u g h t ca n c e llatio n o f re m o v a l p u rsu a n t to 8 U . S. C . § 1229b( b) ( 1) . T hatpr ovi s i on perm i t s the A tt orneyG ener al t o canc el re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s a g a in st a n a lien w h o : (A ) h a s b e e n c o n tin u o u slyp re se n t in the U ni t ed St at es notl es s than t en y ear s ; ( B ) i s of good m or al char act er ; ( C ) has notbeen c onvi ct ed of as peci fi ed offens e; and ( D ) demonstr at es thatr emoval w oul d r es ul ti n exce pt i onal and extr emel yunus ual har ds hi p t o the al i en’ s s pous e, p a re n t, o r c h ild w h o is a c itiz e n o r l a w f u lly a d m itte d p e rm a n e n t r e s id e n t. Fol l ow i ng a mer i t s hear i ng atw hi ch ea ch fa m i l ym embert es t i fi ed, the I m m i gr at i on J udge ( I J ) found thatpet i t i oner s s at i s fi ed the fi r s tthr ee e l ement s of § 1229b( b) ( 1) , butfai l ed t o demonstr at e thatr emoval w oul d r es ul ti n exce pt i onal and extr em el yun usual hardshi p. C on sequen t l y , the IJ denied pet i t i on ers ’ a p p lica tio n s fo r re m o v a l, bu t g ra n ted v o lu n tar yd e p a rtu re . P e tit io n e rs a p p e a led to th e B IA , as se rtin g th e “ IJ d idn o t tak e a ll th e fa c to rs p re se n t in th is c a se in to c o n s i d e r a t i o n w h e n e v a l u a t i n g th e a p p l i c a t i o n s . ” R . a t1 3 . S p e c i fi c a l l y, pet i t i oner s ar gued the I J fai l ed t o acc ountforthe detr i m ent al i m pactr emoval w o u ldh a v e u p o n D a n iel, w h o w o u ldb e fo rc e d to re lo c a te w ith p e tit io n e rs to M e x ic o . Id. T h e ya lso a rg u e d th e IJ fa iled to c o n sid e r th e lo ss o f th e fa m ily- 4-

hom e and s avi ngs , the l os s of Tobar ’ s empl oym entand r et i r ementacc ount , and the p o ssibil ityo f E sp ino za ’s de ath g iven that h e su ffere d fro m a se ri o u s h ea rt c o n d itio n . Id. T he B I A r ej ect ed thes e cont ent i ons and affi rm ed the I J ’ s rul i ng. A dopt i ng buts uppl ement i ng the I J ’ s deci s i on, the B I A concurr ed thatpet i t i oner s had fa i l ed

“ to e sta b lish th e n e c e ss a ry‘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 ’ to qual i fy i ng fami l ym ember s w i thi n the meani ng of [§ 1229b] . ” R . at2. C i t i ng E sp in o z a ’s a b ili tyto re tu rn to w o rk , the B IA fo u n d th a t ev e n c o n sid e rin g h is h e a lth iss u e s a n d lac ko f h e a lth in su ra n c e , the to talityo f th e h a rd sh ip c a u se d to D a n ie l w a s in s u ffic ie n t to e s ta b lis h th e re q u is ite le v e l o f h a rd s h ip . Id. H ence , the B IA d ism issed p eti ti o n ers’ ap p ea l, b u t affirm ed the g ran t of v o lun tary d e p a rtu re . Id. P et i t i on ers no w argue w e hav e j uri sdi ct i on un der the R E A L ID A ctbecau se th e yw e re d e n ied d u e p ro c e ss b yth e IJ’ s fa ilu re to c o n sid e r a ll fa c to rs r e lev a n t to the har ds hi p det erm i nat i on. A l t ernat i vel y , pet i t i oner s s eek r etr oact i ve reinstatem en t of

v o lun taryd ep arture. W e a d d ress the juri sd ict ion al an d v o lun tary departur e i s s ues i n turn. I I . D i s cus s i on A . J ur i s di ct i on

“ W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n to d e te rm in e o u r j u ri s d ic tio n .” Schr oeckv. G onz ales , 4 2 9 F .3 d 9 4 7 , 9 5 0 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). W e h a v e g e n e ra l ju risd ictio n to- 5-

rev iew a final o rde r of rem o v al, an d w h ere , as h ere , the B IA reli es u p o n the IJ’s ra tio n a le to a ffirm its d e c is io n , w e m a yc o n s u lt th e IJ ’s m o re c o m p le te a n a lysis . Uanr er or o v. G onz ales , 4 4 3 F . 3 d 1 1 9 7 , 1 2 0 2 -04 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ). T h e Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tio n a lityA c t (IN A ) p ro v id e s th a t “n o c o u rt sh a ll have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew . . . anyj udgm entr egar di ng the gr ant i ng of r el i ef under ” § 1229b. 8 U . S. C . § 1252( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) . W e have pr evi ous l yhel d that § 1252( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) pr ecl udes us fr om exer ci s i ng j ur i s di ct i on over“any d is c re tio n a ry a s p e c t o f a B IA d e c is io n c o n c e rn in g c a n c e lla tio n o f re m o v a l.” Sabi do Valdi vi a v. G onz ales , 4 2 3 F .3 d 1 1 4 4 , 1 1 4 7 -4 8 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). I n part i cul ar , w e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew a B I A deci s i on thata pet i t i onerhas fa iled to d e m o n stra te th a t re m o v a l w o u ldc a u se e x c e p tio n a l an d e x tre m e ly u n u s u a l h a rd s h ip . Mo ra les Ve n tu ra v . A sh c ro ft , 3 4 8 F . 3 d 1 2 5 9 , 1 2 6 2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). C ongr es s r ece nt l yal t er ed the s t atut oryl ands cape , how ever , byenac t i ng the REAL I D Ac to f

2 0 0 5 . REAL I D Ac t , § 1 0 6 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A) ( i i i ) ( c o d i fi e d a t8 U. S . C. § 1 2 5 2 (a)(2)(D )). T h e R E A L ID A ct ad d s a n ew su b p ara g rap h , § 1 2 5 2 (a)(2)(D ), thatgr ant s us a narr ow bas i s of j ur i s di ct i on overcons t i tut i onal cl ai m s or q u e s tio n s o f

la w ra is e d u p o n a p e titio n fo r r e v ie w . P er al es - C umpean v. G onz ales , 4 2 9 F .3 d 9 7 7 , 9 8 2 n .4 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). N o tw ith sta n d in g th e R E A L ID A c t, how ever , “cha l l enges di r ect ed s ol el yatthe age ncy ’ s di s cr et i onaryand fa ctual- 6-

det erm i nat i ons r emai n out s i de the s cope of j udi ci al r evi ew . ” Ferr y v. G onz al es , 4 5 7 F . 3 d 1 1 1 7 , 1 1 3 0 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) (i n terna l qu o tat ion o m itted). Pet i t i oner s acknow l edge that§ 1252( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) bar s us fr om r evi ew i ng di s cr et i onaryagenc ydeci s i ons m ade pur s uantt o § 1229b. N onethel es s , as s ert i ng th e yw e re d e n ied d u e p ro c e ss b yth e IJ’ s fa ilu re to c o n sid e r a ll fa c to rs r e lev a n t to i t s har ds hi p det erm i nat i on, pet i t i oner s ar gue the R E A L I D A ctgr ant s us j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew thi s cons t i tut i onal cl ai m . R es pondentcount er s that p eti ti o n ers a re m ere lycloa k ing their ch all en g e to th e a g en cy ’s discre ti o n ary har ds hi p det erm i nat i on i n “due pr oces s garb. ” R es p’ tB r . 11- 12. R es pondent in sis ts o u r ju risd ictio n o v e r su c h d isc re tio n a rya g e n c yfin d in g s is sp e c ifica lly pr ecl uded by§ 1252( a) ( 2) ( B ) ( i ) . W e agr ee. D iscreti o n aryag en cyd ec isi o n s m ayn o t be re ca st as co n sti tuti o n al errors o r q u e s tio n s o f

la w s o a s to in v o k e o u r j u ri s d ic tio n u n d e r § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 2 )( D ). See P er ales - C umpean , 429 F. 3d at982 ( r ej ect i ng “pet i t i oner ’ s att emptt o r eca s tthe B IA ’s d e c isio n o n e x tre m e c ru e ltya s a p u re q u e stio n o f law ” b e c a u se it “i nvol ve[d] the exe r ci s e of a gencydi s cr et i on”) . T he “t al i s m ani c i nvocat i on” of due pr oces s l anguage does nots uffi ce t o pr ovi de thi s courtw i th j ur i s di ct i on over non- r evi ew abl e di s cr et i onarycl ai m s vi a the “c ons t i tut i onal cl ai m s ” al l ow ance of th e R E A L ID A c t. Sa lou m v. U. S. C i t izenshi p & Im m igrati on Servs. , 437 F. 3d 2 3 8 , 2 4 3 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). T o h o ldo th e rw ise w o u ldp e rm it all p e tit io n e rs to circu m v en t C o n g ress’s c lear inten t t o eli m inate jurisdicti o n o v er d iscreti o n ary- 7-

deci s i ons “thr ough the fa ci l e devi ce of r e- char act er i zi ng an al l eged abus e of di s cr et i on as a ‘ due pr oces s ’ vi ol at i on. ” To r r e s -Ag u i la rv . I NS , 246 F. 3d 1267, 1 2 7 1 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ); s e e a ls o id . ( “To det erm i ne w hetherw e have j ur i s di ct i on o v er c lai m s lab eled as d u e p roc ess v iolati o n s, w e m u st l o o kb ey o n d the lab el. ”). W e ar e notal one i n r ej ect i ng abus e- of- di s cr et i on cl ai m s r eca s tas cons t i tut i onal err or s orques t i ons of l aw s i m pl yt o i nvoke j ur i s di ct i on underthe R E A L ID A c t. See, e. g. , Vas i le v. G onz al es , 417 F. 3d 766, 768 ( 7th C i r . 2005) ( “ P e rh a p s [ p e t i t i o n e r ] wo u l d l i k e t o s h o e h o rn h i s c l a i m i n t o th e ‘ q u e s t i o n o f l a w’ c a teg o ry , b u t itsim p lyd o e s n o t fit th e re .”); R am adan v. G onz al es , 427 F. 3d 1218, 1 2 2 2 (9th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (“S h o u ld the re b e a n yd o u b t abo u t th e m ea n ing o f th e term

“ q u e stio n s o f

law ” in th e R E A L ID A c t, th e leg isla tiv e h isto rym a k e s it abundant l ycl earthi s t erm r efe r s t o a narr ow cat egoryof i s s ues r egar di ng sta tu to ryc o n stru c tio n .”); s ee als o Torr es -A gui lar , 2 4 6 F . 3 d a t1 2 7 1 ( “ [ A] p e tit io n e r m a yn o t cr e a te th e ju risd ictio n th a t C o n g re ss c h o se to re m o v e sim p ly b ycloa k ing an ab u se o f d iscreti o n arg u m en t i n co n sti tuti o n al ga rb.”). M o reo v er, c o u rts h a v e sp e c ifica llyrejec ted th e n o tio n th a t an IJ’ s fa ilu re to c o n sid e r c e rta in e v id e n c e o r e v e n re a c h th e c o rre c t co n c lu sio n e sta b lish e s a c o n stitu tio n a l cla im w ith in th e m e a n in g o f th e R E A L ID A c t. In d e e d , as th e S e c o n d C irc u it ex p lain s: [T]he m er e as s ert i on thatan I J has abus ed hi s di s cr et i on by i ncorr ect l yw ei ghi ng the evi dence , fai l i ng t o expl i ci t l ycons i der cert ai n evi dence , ors i m pl yr eac hi ng the w r ong out come does not i t s el f es t abl i s h a col or abl e cons t i tut i onal cl ai m w i thi n the meani ng of- 8-

8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(D ), ev e n if a p e tit io n e r d re ss e s u p h is c laim in the langu age o f du e process. Bu g ay o n gv . I

NS , 442 F. 3d 67, 72 ( 2d C i r . 2006) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons and a lte ra tio n s o m itte d ). H er e, pet i t i oner s att emptt o ci r cumventthe j ur i s di ct i onal bari m pos ed by § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(B )(i) b yc h a ra c ter izin g th e ir c laim a s a c o n stitu tio n a l er ro r a m e n a b le t o § 1252( a) ( 2) ( D ) r evi ew . Y etpet i t i oner s do notal l ege theyw er e deni ed an o p p o rtu n ityto p rese n t th eir case b efo re a n u n b iased IJ, o r th at th e IJ m i s i nt erpr et ed § 1229b. R ather , theycont end the B I A “err ed i n det erm i ni ng that [they ] fai l ed t o demonstr at e thatthei rr emoval w oul d r es ul ti n exce pt i onal and extr emel yunus ual har ds hi p. ” Pet ’ r s ’ B r . 13- 14. T heyas s ertthei rr i ghtt o due p roc ess w as v iolated b ec au se th e B IA “e rred in n o t eva luating all the fac tors pr es enti n thi s cas e, oratl eas ti n notaddr es s i ng al l of them i n the dec i s i on. ” Id. at 17 . T h ese arg u m en ts are u n av ail ing , h o w ev er, be ca u se th eych all en g e the IJ’s d isc re tio n a ryfin d in g s a n d tak e a im a t th e m a n n e r in w h ich th e IJ b a lan c e d c e rta in har ds hi p fac t or s . A s a cons equenc e, thes e ar gum ent s ar e bey ond the narr ow c a te g o ry o f

is s u e s w e m a yre v ie w p u rs u a n t to th e R E A L ID A c t. See D i al lo v. G onz ales , 44 7 F . 3d 12 74 , 12 81 -82 (10th C i r. 20 06 ). A ccordi ng l y , w e m ust d is m is s th e p e titio n fo r r e v ie w fo r l a c ko f ju ri s d ic tio n .- 9-

B . V o lun taryD ep arture D ur i ng the pende ncyof thi s appea l , pet i t i oner s s oughti n thi s courta s t ay o f v o lu n tar yd e p a rtu re . W e d e n ied th a t re q u e st b e c a u se p e tit io n e rs fa iled to m ake the s how i ngs r equi r ed t o obt ai n a s t ayand bec aus e theyhad notes t abl i s hed o u r j u ri s d ic tio n to c o n s id e r t h e p e titio n fo r r e v ie w . See Tobarv. G onz al es , N o. 06- 9506 ( 10th C i r . M ar . 21, 2006) ( or derdeny i ng m ot i on fors t ay ) . T he p e rio d fo r v o lu n tar yd e p a rtu re h a s s in c e e x p ire d , an d p e tit io n e rs n o w a sk u s to r etr oact i vel yr ei ns t at e vol unt arydepartur e. T hi s court , how ever , i s w i thout author i tyt o r ei ns t at e an e xpi r ed per i od of vol unt arydepartur e. Svi r i dov v. A sh c ro ft , 358 F. 3d 722, 731 ( 10th C i r . 2004) . R ei ns t at i ng an expi r ed per i od of v o lu n tar yd e p a rtu re n e c e ss a rilya u th o riz e s a n e w o p p o rtu n ityto v o lu n tar ily d e p a rt , w h ic h is a f

u n c tio n C o n g re s s h a s a s s ig n e d to th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l. 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 c ; Mu lla i v. A sh c ro ft , 3 8 5 F .3 d 6 3 5 , 6 4 0 (6 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). W e c an n o t ci rcu m v en t C o n g ress’s w il l. N o r ca n w e re instate a v o lun tary d e p a rtu re p e rio d , as p e tit io n e rs u rg e , sim p lyb e c a u se C o n g re ss im p o se d lim its u p o n the len g th o f ti m e fo r w h ich a d istri ct direc tor m ayex tend v o lun tary d e p a rtu re . O n c e a v o lu n tar yd e p a rtu re p e rio d e x p ire s, “ th e re is n o th in g to su sp en d an d an yco u rto rde r pu rpo rt ing to toll an ex p ir ed p eriod o f v o lun tary departur e w oul d have the effec tof cr eat i ng a new vol unt arydepartur e per i od. ” B ocova v . G onz ales , 412 F. 3d 257, 266 ( 1s tC i r . 2005) . T hi s , as w e have s ai d,- 10-

w o u l d b e a n i m p e rm i s s i b l e c i r c u m v e n t i o n o f C o n g r e s s i o n a l w i l l . A c c o r d i n g l y, w e denypet i t i oner s ’ r eques tt o r ei ns t at e vol unt arydepartur e. I I I . C oncl us i on T he p et i t i on i s D ISM ISS E D for l ack o f j uri sdi ct i on . P et i t i on ers ’ r equ est fo rr e i n s t a t e me n to f

v o l u n t a ryd e p a rtu r e i s DE NI E D. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

Jo h n C . P o rfili o C i r cui tJ udge