Opinion ID: 2806244
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Incorrect Application of Precedent

Text: Petitioner, almost exclusively, argues on appeal that the weight of the evidence slants in a finding of an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship, and thus, that the BIA incorrectly applied Monreal and the lineage of cases interpreting its decision. We, however, do not review an IJ’s balance of the hardship factors because it is considered a discretionary decision. Section 1252(a)(2)(B) of Title 8 prevents this court from reviewing denials of cancellations of removal, 3 No. 14-3658 Rodriguez v. Holder or any other decision or action, as specified, within the Attorney General’s discretion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); see also Ortiz-Cervantes v. Holder, 596 F. App’x at 432 (citing 8 U.S. C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (a)(2)(D) (“We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary decision to deny cancellation of removal on the grounds that the requisite exceptional and extremely unusual hardship has not been met. Our jurisdiction is limited to questions of law that do not require us to analyze the factors for eligibility.”); Ettienne v. Holder, 659 F.3d 513, 51718 (6th Cir. 2011); and Flores-Cedra v. Holder, 572 F. App’x 389, 390 (6th Cir. 2014) (per curiam). While Petitioner claims that the BIA erred by failing to properly apply its own precedent, he is effectively making an evidentiary argument. The precedential cases Petitioner cites are: In re Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I&N Dec. 56 (BIA 2001); In re Andazola-Rivas, 23 I&N Dec. 319 (BIA 2002); and In re Gonzalez Recinas, 23 I&N Dec. 467 (BIA 2002). He argues that a proper application of these cases to the facts of Petitioner’s case supports the conclusion that his three United States citizen children would indeed suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if Petitioner is ordered removed from this country. While we have found a failure by the BIA to follow its own precedent reviewable, see Aburto-Rocha v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 500, 503 (6th Cir. 2008) (citing Billeke-Tolosa, 385 F.3d at 711-12); see also Ettienne, 659 F.3d at 517, that “does not give us authority to second guess every choice the agency makes about how to apply uncertain or even conflicting precedents in a given context.” Aburto-Rocha, 535 F.3d at 503. Nor does it give us free reign to “override the BIA’s decision on the basis of what [we] perceive as a better reading of the agency’s own precedent.” Id. Petitioner does not specifically state how the BIA neglected to apply its own precedent. Instead, Petitioner seeks to draw comparisons between the facts of this case, and the BIA’s 4 No. 14-3658 Rodriguez v. Holder precedential cases. While Petitioner has fashioned this issue as a failure of the BIA to follow its own precedent, Petitioner, in effect, actually challenges the IJ and BIA’s discretionary determination that Petitioner did not meet the hardship requirement. Petitioner essentially asks us to weigh his hardship evidence, and compare the facts of this case to the BIA’s precedential cases. But this Court’s jurisdiction “does not extend to ‘weighing of the evidence’” because to do so would “effectively eliminate the jurisdictional bar on review of denials of cancellation of removal.” See Ortiz-Cervantes v. Holder, 596 F. App’x at 432 (quoting Ettienne, 659 F.3d at 517). And as we’ve previously stated, “this court lacks jurisdiction over claims that can be evaluated only by engaging in head-to-head comparisons between the facts of the petitioner’s case and those of precedential decisions.” Ettienne, 659 F.3d at 518. Furthermore, we have held that “[a]n agency’s interpretation of its own precedents receives considerable deference.” Aburto-Rocha, 555 F.3d at 503. Petitioner also argues that the IJ expanded the standard of proof necessary to warrant cancellation of removal. But this argument is likewise premised on a factual comparison of the cases. Petitioner contends that the BIA failed to perform a “side-by-side review of this matter to compare it with first Monreal and then Andazola.” Pet’r’s Br. 24. Petitioner then goes on to make factual comparisons between this case and Monreal and Andazola. Although he states that the IJ increased the standard of proof, his argument rests on the conclusion that the facts and circumstances of his case are more severe. Again, Petitioner’s argument ignores our holding that we lack jurisdiction to conduct “head-to-head comparisons.” Ettienne, 659 F.3d at 518. Accordingly, Petitioner’s argument is dismissed. 5 No. 14-3658 Rodriguez v. Holder