F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT Ap ril 21 , 2 006 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HEEL EV EN THCIRC UI T

________________________ N o. 04- 1674 0

________________________ BI A N o. A 79- 414- 560 JOSE FELIX MAR TINEZ, Petitioner, ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, Re spon de nt.

________________________ Pe tition f or Re vie w of

aD ec isi on of the Bo ar d of

I mmigr at ion A ppe al s

_________________________ (A pr il 21, 200 6) Be fo re BL A CK , BA RKE T T a nd C O X , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. BL ACK , C ircuit Judg e:On Novembe r 25, 2002, President B ush signe d into law the Homeland Sec urity Act of 1 2002 (HSA), Pub. L . No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, which e stablished the Depa rtment of Ho me landSe c urity

(D HS) , a bo lis he d th e INS, andtr ans ferre d th e INS’ s f un c tio ns to theDH S. 2 Pe tition er Jos e Fe lix Martine z pe tition s f or r ev ie w of

the Bo ar d of Immigration Appeals’ (BI A’ s) aff irm ance of the I mmigration Ju dge’ s (IJ’ s) order deny ing hi s application for cancellation of removal, pursuant to 8 U.S .C. § 122 9b(b). S pecifically , he challenges the BIA ’ s discretionary determination that he failed to satisfy§ 1229 b(b)(1)(D )’ s “ exceptional and extrem elyunusu al ha rd sh ip ” req ui rem en t. We dis mis s t he pe ti ti on forlac k o f juri sd ic ti on . I. BACKGROUND T he f oll ow ing f

ac ts are not

in dis put e. P et iti one r is a na tiv e an d c iti ze n of Mex ic o wh o e nt ered th e Uni te d S ta te s wi th ou t i ns pe ct io n i n 1 98 9. Hi s t wo ch ildre n—J ose F el ix, w ho w as born in Ja nuary199 2, a nd C arlos Martine z, w ho was bo rn in Jan ua ry 19 96 —ar e U.S. cit iz en s. Bo th ch il dr en li ve wit h P et it io ne r. On A ugus t 22, 2001, the former I mmigration and Naturalization Service (I N S) iss ue d P et iti one r a N oti ce to A ppe ar , a lle gin g he is an a lie n pr es en t i n th e

1 United States w ithou t being admitted or paroled, in violation of 8 U. S. C. § 118 2(a)( 6)(A )(i). A t his hearing, Petitioner conceded re m ovabili ty under § 1 18 2( a)(6 )(A)(i ), bu t re qu es te d c an cel la ti on of r em ov al pu rs ua ntto § 1 22 9b (b ). T he I J de nie d hi s appl ic at ion f or c an ce llatio n of

r emova l on O ct obe r 29, 200 3,The IJ also determined Petitioner failed to satisfy § 1229b(b)( 1)(B )’s “ g ood moral 2 char acte r” require ment. On appe al, the B IA expressly declined to a ddress this alternative holding. Theref

ore, theIJ ’s “g ood moral cha rac ter” decision is not an issue in this petiti on for revie w. 3 hold ing Petition er f

ailed to dem onstrate his rem oval would result in “ exceptional an d e xtr emel y unu sua l hard shi p” to his tw o U . S. c iti ze n c hil dr en , pur sua nt t o § 122 9b(b)(1)(D ). 2 Pe tition er ti mel y appe al edthe I J’ s de ci sio n to the BI A . I n aw ri tte n op ini on, the BIAdismissed the appeal on Decem ber 8, 2004 , e xpressly agree ing with the IJ that Petitioner did no t dem onstrate his two U. S. citizen children w ould suffer

“ ex ce pti ona l a nd e xtr emel y unu sua l hard shi p” upo n hi s r emova l t o M ex ic o. T his pe ti ti on forrev ie w ens ue d. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

“ W e re vie w sub

j ec t m atte r j urisd ic tio n de novo .” G onza le z- O rope za v . U . S. A tt’ y G en . , 321 F. 3d 13 31, 1332 (11t h Cir. 2003 ). III . AN AL YS IS The issue of f

irst im pression we address is w hether 8 U. S. C. § 125 2(a)( 2)(D ) re stores our ability to review the BIA ’ s purely discretionary determination that a petitioner failed to satisfy§ 1229 b(b)(1)(D )’ s “ exceptional an d e xt rem el y un us ua l h ard sh ip ” req ui rem en t.4

Se ct ion 122 9b( b) (1 ) giv es the A tto rn eyG en er al dis cr et ion to ca nc el the re m ova l of

a n a lie n w ho d emonstrate s ( 1) c ont inu ous phy sic al pr es en ce in the United States of at least 10 y ears pre ceding the date of application; (2) goo d m oral ch ar ac te r during that pe ri od; ( 3) ala ck of c erta in c ri mina l c onvi ct ion s; and (4 ) ex ce pti ona l a nd e xtr emel y unu sua l hard shi p to his or he r spou se , pare nt, or child, w ho is a U. S. citizen or perm anent resident. P etitioner contends the BIA erre d wh en itaffi rm ed th e IJ ’s dec is io n, p ur su an t t o § 12 29 b( b) (1 )(D), t ha t h is two U. S. citizen children w ould not suffer “ exceptional and extrem elyunusu al ha rd sh ip ” u po n h is rem ov al to Mex ic o. Se ct ion 125 2( a) (2 )( B) (i ) pr ev en ts u s f ro m e xe rc isi ng j urisd ic tio n ov er the BIA ’ s “ j udgm ent[s] regar ding the granting of relief under section . . . 1229b.” I n G onza le z- O rope za , w e unde rs co re d § 1 252( a) (2 )( B) (i )’ s im pa ct on o ur j urisd ic tio n, statin g th e BI A ’ s § 1 229b (b )( 1) (D ) “ ex ce pti ona l a nd e xtr emel y unus ual hardship d eterm

ination is a discretionarydecision no t subject to re view. ” 321 F. 3d at 13 33. O ur

pr ec ed en t thus square lypr ec lud es us f ro m r ev ie w ing the BIA ’ s conclusio n that a petition er has not met § 1229 b(b)(1)(D )’ s “ exceptional an d e xt rem el y un us ua l h ard sh ip ” st an da rd . W e ca nnot

e nd o ur a na ly sis he re , how ev er , be cause the RE A LI D A ct of 2005 , w hic h P re sid en t B ush sig ne d in to l aw on M ay11, 200 5, r es tor edour abil ity5

to rev ie w cert ai n a sp ect s o f th e BIA’s fi na l re m ov al ord ers . See RE A LI D A ct of 2005 , P ub. L . N o. 109 -1 3, 119 S ta t. 231 . S pe ci fi ca lly , § 10 6( a) (1 )( A )( ii) of the RE ALID Ac t amended § 125 2 by adding a new provision , § 1252(a)(2)( D) , w hich pr ovi de s in r el ev an t part : N oth ing in subp ar ag raph ( B) or ( C) , or in an y oth er

pr ovi sio n of

thi s chapter (other than this section) which limits or eliminates judicial review , shall be construed as precluding review of constitu tional cl ai m s or que sti ons of

la w r ai se d up on a

pe tition f or r ev ie w f ile d w ith an appr opria te c ourt of

appe al s in a cc or da nc e w iththi s se ct ion . Section 1252 (a)( 2)(D ) applies to all appeals from removal orders “ issued b efore, on, or af ter the date of the [RE ALID Ac t’ s May11, 2005,] enactment.” See P ub. L . N o. 109 -1 3, § 10 6( b) , 119 S ta t. 231 , 311 . A cc or din gly , w e m ust de te rm ine wh ati m p ac t , i f a n y, § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 2 )( D) h as o n o u r i n ab i l i t y t o re v i ew th e B IA ’s discretionary determination s under § 122 9b(b)(1)(D ). Alt ho ug h t hi s p et it io n p res en ts an is su e o f fi rs t i m pr es si on in ou r ci rcu it , we have analogous case la w. In Ch ac on- B ote ro v . U . S. A tto rney G en er

al , we co n s i d er ed wh et h er§ 1 2 5 2 (a )( 2 )( D) empo we rs u s t o re v i ew th e B IA ’s discretionary decision abou t the tim eliness of an asy lum application un der 8 U . S. C. § 11 58( a) (2 ). 427 F . 3d 9 54, 956 –57 (1 1thCi r. 200 5) . W e ha d pr ev iou sly held that § 11 58(a)(3) pre vents us from review ing th e BI A’ s discretionary de ci si on s ab ou t t he ti mel in es s o f an asylu m ap pl ic at io n. See M

endoza v. U. S. A tt’yBe forethe B IA, Petitioner arg ued the I J violated his proce dural dueproce ss rig hts by 3 faili ng to a c t a s an impa

rtial andne utr a l f

a c t- fi nd e r. Th e B IA re

je c te d h is p ro c e du ral du e pr oc e ss arg ument, howeve r, and Petitioner doe s not challeng e this holding in his petition for re view. 6 G en . , 327 F . 3d 1 283, 128 7 ( 11th C ir . 200 3) ; se e als o § 11 58( a) (3 ) (“ N o c ourt sh al l ha ve j urisd ic tio n to r ev ie w a nyde te rm inatio n of the A tto rn eyG en er al [ re gard ing the ti mel ine ss o f an a sy lum appl ic at ion ] . ”) . G ive n C ongr es s’ s e na ct men t of § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 2 )( D) , h o we v er , we re co n s i d er ed th e s co p e o f § 1 1 5 8 (a )( 3 )’s j urisdictio nal bar. A fter a cknowledging § 1252 (a)( 2)(D ) enables j udicial review of ape tition er ’ s c onstitu tio na l c la im s a nd q ue sti ons of la w , w e co nc lud edthe BIA ’ s “ ‘ discretionary or fac tual determination s continu e to fall outside [our] j urisdictio n.’ ” Se e Ch ac on- B ote ro , 427 F . 3d at 95 7 ( quoting Vasile v. Gonzales , 4 1 7 F. 3 d 7 6 6 , 6 7 8 (7 th Ci r. 2 0 0 5 )) . B ec au s e t h e p et i t i o n erch al l en g ed th e B IA ’s d i s c r e t i o n ary d e c i s i o n u n d e r § 1 1 5 8 ( a ) ( 2 )

—b u td i d n o tr a i s e c o n s t i tu t i o n a l c l a i ms or que sti ons of

la w —w e re lie d on § 11 58( a) (3 ) an d M en doza to d ism

iss his pe ti ti on forlac k o f juri sd ic ti on . Si milarl y , P et iti one r as ks u s to r ev ie w the BI A ’ s di sc re tio naryde te rm inatio n that he failed to establish § 1 229b (b)(1)( D) ’ s “ exceptional and extrem elyunusu al hard shi p” r eq uir emen t; he doe s no t, how ev er , r ai se c onstitu tio na l c la im s or qu es ti on s o f la w. App lying § 1 25 2( a)(2 )(B) (i) , G onza le z- O rope za , a nd Ch ac on- 3 B ote ro , we ho ld hi s p et it io n fo r rev ie w con ti nu es to fal l o ut si de ou r juri sd ic ti on .T h e F i r s t C i r c u i th a s a l s o d i s m i s s e df o r l a c k o f j u ri s d i c t i o n a

p e t i t i o n e r ’ s p o s t - R E A L- 4 ID-Ac t challeng e to the B IA’s § 1229b(b) (1)( D) “ exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” determination. See B encosm e de Rodriguez v . Gonzales , 4 3 3 F . 3 d1 6 3 , 1 6 4 ( 1 s tC i r . 2 0 0 5 ) . In doing so, how ever , the Fir st Circuit did notexpressly addre ss the relationship between § 1252(a) (2)( D), § 1252(a )(2) (B )(i), and the B IA’s discre tionary decisions under § 1229b(b)( 1)(D) . 7 In rea ching th is hold ing, we j oin at least four other circuits, which have concluded § 1 2 5 2 (a )( 2 )( D) d o es n o tre s t o re th e f ed er al co u rt s ’ ab i l i t y t o re v i ew th e B IA ’s § 1 22 9b (b )(1 )(D) “ ex cep ti on al an d e xt rem el y un us ua l h ard sh ip ” d et ermin at io ns . See M eraz-Rey es v. Gonzales , 436 F. 3d 84 2, 843 (8th Cir. 2006); De La V ega v. Gonzales , 436 F . 3d 1 41, 146 ( 2d C ir . 200 6) ; Mireles v. Gonzales , 433 F . 3d 9 65, 968– 69 ( 7thCi r. 200 6) ; M art ine z- R osas v. Gonzales , 424 F . 3d 9 26, 929 –30 (9 th Ci r. 20 05 ). W e acc or di ng ly dis mis s t he pe ti ti on forlac k o f juri sd ic ti on .

4 IV. CONCLUSION N otw ith sta ndi ng C ongr es s’ s e na ct men t of § 12 52( a) (2 )( D ), w e co nti nue to la ck j urisd ic tio n ov er

the BI A ’ s pu re lydis cr et ion ary de ci sio n th at ape tition er

did not mee t § 1229 b( b) (1 )( D )’ s “ ex ce pti ona l a nd e xtr emel y unu sua l hard shi p” st an da rd . PETITION DISMIS SED.