FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T APR 4, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE U

NITED STATE S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 0- 10 85 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Agen cy No. A0 78 -3 04 -7 83
MARC OS SARMI ENTO-HERRERA, a.k .a. Marc os Sarm ie nt o, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pet it io ne r, vers us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Res po nd en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of aDeci si on of t he Bo ardof I m

m ig rat io n Ap pe al s

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ap ril 4, 2 01 1) Befo re CARNES, BAR KETT andMARCUS , Cir cu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Mar co s Sa rm ie nt o- Herre ra p et it io ns forrev ie w of the Bo ardof I m m ig rat io nApp eal s’ fin al ord er af firm in g the Im

m ig rat io n Jud ge ’s den ia l o f hi s ap pl ic at io ns fo r ad jus tm en t o f st atus an d wai ve r of in adm is si bi li ty. See INA § § 2 45 (a) & 21 2( i)( 1) , 8 U.S.C. § § 1 25 5( a) & 1 18 2( i)( 1) . Sarm ie nt o a rg ue s tha t the BIA erre d inde nyin g h is ap pl ic at io n fo r a wai ve r of in adm is si bi li ty becau se itap pl ie d a n in co rrec t l eg al st an da rdinco nc lu di ng th athe ha d n otde m on st rat edth athi s pa ren ts wou ldsu fferanex tre m e h ard sh ip if h e were d en ie d a dm is si on to th e Uni te d S tate s. Sarm ie nt o a ls o arg ue s tha t the IJ v io la te d h is du e p ro ces s ri gh ts by reque st in g tha t h is co un se l p ro fferhi s p aren ts ’ te st im on ie s athi s re m ov al he ari ng . The go ve rn m en t co nt en ds th atwe lac k juris di ct io n o ve r Sarm ie nt o’s p et it io n be cau se he ab an do ne d a ny clai m of e rro r with re sp ectto th e d en ia l o f hi s ap pl ic at io n fo r ad

jus tm en t o f st atus an d S arm ie nt o’s ap pe al of t he de ni al of h is di sc ret io na ry

waiv er o f in adm is si bi li ty is m oo t as a res ul t. W e rev ie w de n ov o i ss ue s o f subjec t-matte r juri sd ic ti on . Gon zal ez-Or op eza v. Un it edSta te s At t’y

Gen., 3 21 F.3d13 31 , 13 32 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ). Und er the INA, an a li enm

us t ex haus t h is adm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s b efo re s eek in g ju di ci al
rev ie w of any iss ue . INA § 2 42 (d )(1 ), 8 U.S.C. § 12 52 (d )(1 ). W he n a n a li enfai ls to ex haus t h is adm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s, we l ackjuri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th e un ex haus te d i ss ue on ap pe al . Alim v. Go nz al es , 44 6 F .3d12 39 , 12 53 (11 th Cir
. 20 06 ); s ee al so Am ay a-Artun du ag a v . Uni te d S ta te s At t’y Gen., 4 63 F.3d12 47 , 212 50 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (fi nd in g tha t thi s C ou rt l ack edjuri sd ic ti on to rev ie w an

adve rs e cre di bi li ty det erm in at io n b ecau se anali enfai le d t o c ha ll en ge th at de te rm in at io n b efo re the BIA). W e la ckjuri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th e IJ ’s den ia l o f Sarm ie nt o’s re qu es t fo r an ad jus tm en t o f st atus fortwo reas on s. Fi rs t, Sarm ie nt o aba nd on edan y ch al le ng e to th e IJ ’s den ia l o f hi s re qu es t fo r anad jus tm en t o f st atus be cau se he fai le d t o ex haus t h is adm in is tra ti ve rem ed ie s b y rai si ng th e is su e b efo re the BIA an d be cau se he waiv edth e is su e o n app eal to th is Co urt. Sec on d, we l ackjuri si dc ti on be cau se th e p la inlan gu ag e o f th e INA pr ecl ud es jud ic ia l re vi ew of th e IJ ’s de ci si on to de ny reli ef. INA § 2 42 (a)( 2) (B)( i), 8 U.S.C. § 1 25 2( a)(2 )(B) (i) (“No
co urt s ha ll ha ve juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w . . . an y jud gm en t re ga rd in g the gra nt in g o f rel ie f un de r se ct io n . . . 12 55 of t hi s t it le [ad jus tm en t o f st atus ]. ”). Bec au se we lac k juris di ct io n t o re vi ew th e d en ia l o f Sarm ie nt o’s re qu es t fo r anad jus tm en t o f st atus , hi s ap pe al of t he BIA’s de ni al of h is waiv er o f in adm is si bi li ty is d is m is se d a s m oo t. Eve n a ss um in g tha t the BIA ap pl ie d the
wro ng leg al st an da rdinde nyin g S arm ie nt o’s ap pl ic at io n fo r a wai ve r of in adm is si bi li ty, su cha waiv er i f gr an te d wo ul d o nl y li ft ast atut ory

ba r to hi s el ig ib il ity foranad jus tm en t o f st atus un de r INA § 2 45 (i) (2 (A), 8 U.S.C. § 12 55 (i) (2 )(A). Bec au se th e BIA d en ie d S arm ie nt o’s ap pl ic at io n fo r anad jus tm en t 3st atus inanex erci se of i ts di sc ret io n, h owe ve r, whe th er h e is eli gi bi le for a waiv er of th e g ro un d fo r in admis si bi li ty in INA § 21 2( a)(6 )(C) (i) , 8 U.S.C. § 11 82 (a)( 6) (C)( i), i s m oo t. See Al Najjar v. As hc ro ft, 2 73 F.3d13 30 , 13 35 –3 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 1) (“ A cas e is m oo t wh enth e is su es pre se nt edare n o l on ge r ‘liv e’ or th e p art ie s l acka le ga ll y

co gn iz ab le in te res t i n the ou tc om e.” (al te rat io n o m it te d) ). The refo re, we are witho utjuri sd ic ti on to rev ie w th e BIA’s d eci si onde nyin g h is ap pl ic at io n fo r a wai ve r of in adm is si bi li ty becau se m oo tn es s i s juris di ct io na l. Id
. at13 36
.

“ Eve n [t ho ug h] we [do ] no t h av e juri sd ic ti on , we . . . st il l h av e juri sd ic ti on to rev ie w subs tant ia l co ns ti tu ti on al cla im s.” Zaf ar v . Uni te d S ta te s At ty. Gen ., 46 1 F .3d13 57 , 13 67 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d) . Howev er, “ [t]he re i s n o co ns ti tu ti on al ly pro te ct edrig htto di sc ret io na ry rel ie f, whi chis th e rel ie f reque st ed he re.” Id . (ci ta ti on om it te d) . Sarm ie nt o’s ar gu m en t tha t the IJ v io la te d h is du e pr oc es s ri gh ts by requ iri ng hi s at to rn ey to pro fferth e co nt en ts of h is pa ren ts ’ te st im on y at h is rem ov al pro ceed in gs is witho utm eri t. PETI TI ON DENI ED.

4