Opinion ID: 1237154
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: Our jurisdiction to review a final order of removal is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (2000); Immigration and Nationality Act § 242, as amended by the Real ID Act of 2005, Pub.L. No. 109-13, Div. B, § 106, 119 Stat. 231 (May 11, 2005). With respect to asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT claims of a petitioner who was convicted of an offense covered by § 1252(a)(2)(C), we have jurisdiction to review the denial of an asylum application and to review the denial of withholding of removal and CAT relief when a petitioner raises questions of law, including mixed questions of law and fact, or constitutional claims. Morales v. Gonzales, 478 F.3d 972, 978-80 (9th Cir.2007). Moreover, as to factual issues, when an IJ does not rely on an alien's conviction in denying CAT relief and instead denies relief on the merits, none of the jurisdiction-stripping provisions... apply to divest this court of jurisdiction. Id. at 980; see also Arteaga v. Mukasey, 511 F.3d 940, 942 n. 1 (9th Cir.2007). Notwithstanding any limitations on judicial review over discretionary determinations set forth in § 1252(a)(2)(B), section 106 of the Real ID Act explicitly provides for judicial review over constitutional claims or questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (as amended by Real ID Act § 106(a)(1)(A)(iii)); see also Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, 410 F.3d 585, 587 (9th Cir.2005), as adopted by Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, 466 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir.2006) (en banc) (explaining that the Real ID Act restored judicial review of constitutional questions and questions of law presented in petitions for review of final removal orders). Accordingly, we have construed the jurisdictional grant of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) to encompass constitutional questions, pure questions of law, and the application of statutes or regulations to undisputed facts, sometimes referred to as mixed questions of fact and law. Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 650 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam). The government contends that we lack jurisdiction to consider Brezilien's claims because (1) Brezilien has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), and/or (2) there is no administrative decision to review. See INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 123 S.Ct. 353, 154 L.Ed.2d 272 (2002). We address these arguments with respect to each of Brezilien's claims as appropriate.