Opinion ID: 2977083
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Petition for Cancellation of Removal

Text: Ramdane argues that the BIA erred in upholding the IJ’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal because he established that he met all of the eligibility requirements. However, as set forth above, we have been given no reason to believe that a decision regarding extreme cruelty is any different from a decision regarding extreme hardship, which is a discretionary decision and we do not have jurisdiction to review a discretionary decision. However, even if we did have jurisdiction to review the IJ’s decision, Ramdane would still not be eligible for cancellation of removal. To qualify for cancellation of removal as a battered spouse, Ramdane must have satisfied all five of the eligibility requirements. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2)(A). Yet, he did not satisfy at least two of these requirements. The first eligibility requirement that Ramdane did not satisfy is that he was subjected to extreme cruelty by a spouse who is or was a U.S. citizen. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2)(A)(i)(I). Ramdane testified that his former spouse was physically and verbally abusive, changed the locks on the doors of their house while he was at work and threatened to have him deported. -14- Based upon the evidence before him, the IJ found that Ramdane was not subjected to extreme cruelty. The IJ found it “preposterous” that Ramdane would claim that he was in fear of Ford, who was not much over 5 feet tall, because Ramdane is tall, powerfully built and is from one of the “historically toughest tribes in the world.” The IJ also found that, “if suffering from degrading language, being cursed at, being kicked out of the house, having difficulties seeing the child, and various threats which never have any substance constitutes battering, then virtually every person who is party to a difficult divorce is a battered spouse” and that clearly is not the intention of Congress in enacting the Violence Against Women Act. In sum, the IJ found that Ramdane’s discussion of his unfortunate marriage “does not constitute extreme cruelty within the meaning of the law.” The BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision regarding extreme cruelty. The evidence does not compel a contrary conclusion. Therefore, Ramdane has not satisfied this eligibility requirement. The other eligibility requirement that Ramdane does not satisfy is the requirement that he has been a person of good moral character. 8 U.S.C. § 1119b(b)(2)(A)(iii). The IJ determined that Ramdane does not have good moral character, a discretionary finding. The BIA did not discuss this finding because this finding was not appealed by Ramdane. Ramdane argues in his appeal that the IJ and the BIA erroneously relied upon speculation and conjecture to conclude that Ramdane has not been a person of good moral character and did not consider any countervailing positive factors. He also argues that the IJ failed to take into consideration the verbal and emotional abuse and physical threats he suffered. Ramdane calls the IJ’s conclusions regarding moral character “summary, unfounded and biased.” -15- The IJ found many reasons to doubt Ramdane’s credibility. According to the IJ, Ramdane provided inconsistent and vague testimony regarding the timing of the rebellion and the events surrounding the rebellion and his actual tribal affiliation. The IJ also determined that Ramdane’s statement that he was physically afraid of his wife was “almost certainly a lie.” The IJ concluded that, “[t]he dishonesty and disingenuousness of [Ramdane’s] testimony in court today indicates to the Court that he is not a person of good moral character.” Decisions regarding moral character are discretionary and, thus, not reviewable. Mateo v. Gonzales, 217 F. App’x 476, 481 (6th Cir. 2007) (findings of moral character are discretionary); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 656 (9th Cir. 2007) (determinations that are subjective or dependent upon the identity of the person or entity examining the issue, such as whether an alien has good moral character, are discretionary). Even if the IJ’s decision regarding Ramdane’s moral character were reviewable, the evidence presented by Ramdane would not compel a contrary conclusion. Therefore, even if this Court were to review the IJ’s and the Board’s decisions, Ramdane would not be eligible for cancellation of removal because he cannot satisfy at least two of the requirements.