Opinion ID: 625910
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Propriety of Due Process Challenge in Cancellation of Removal Proceedings

Text: Delgado claims that the Fifth Amendment provides him with certain due process rights in relation to his application for cancellation of removal. In support, he relies on Reno v. Flores, a Supreme Court case clearly stating that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings. 507 U.S. 292, 306, 113 S.Ct. 1439, 123 L.Ed.2d 1 (1993). While this point is undoubtedly true, an alien eligible for discretionary relief does not have a substantive entitlement, and therefore, there is no liberty interest at stake in a proceeding where an alien seeks discretionary relief. Khan v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 513, 518 (7th Cir.2008). Thus, aliens, do not have a right to due process in hearings for discretionary relief, such as those conducted in response to a § 1229b application for cancellation of removal. See id.; see also Town of Castle Rock, Colo. v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748, 757, 125 S.Ct. 2796, 162 L.Ed.2d 658 (2005) (Our cases recognize that a benefit is not a protected entitlement if government officials may grant or deny it in their discretion.); Portillo-Rendon v. Holder, 662 F.3d 815, 817 (7th Cir.2011) (To have a liberty or property interest in some benefit, a person must have a legitimate claim of entitlement, which means an entitlement established by rule; hope for a favorable exercise of administrative discretion does not qualify.). This is not the end of the matter. In situations where petitioners have made flabby constitutional arguments of the sort found here, we have construed such claims as arguments that the IJ's hearing violated [the] statutory and regulatory provisions applicable to the hearing in question. See, e.g., Apouviepseakoda v. Gonzales, 475 F.3d 881, 885 (7th Cir.2007). At first glance, this may appear to put our jurisdiction in question considering our analysis above, which indicated that our jurisdiction was based on the fact that Delgado has presented a constitutional question. But [t]he procedural sufficiency of an immigration hearing is a legal question, Boyanivskyy v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 286, 291 (7th Cir.2006), and since 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) allows us to retain jurisdiction over any constitutional claims or questions of law, Delgado's challenge to the sufficiency of his cancellation proceedings is safely within our purview. We review questions of law de novo. Id.