Opinion ID: 49728
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: “We review subject matter jurisdiction de novo.” Gonzalez-Oropeza v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 321 F.3d 1331, 1332 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). Our jurisdiction to review orders of removal has, in the past, been restricted by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), which provides that: no court shall have jurisdiction to review any final order of removal against an alien who is removable by reason of having committed a criminal offense covered in section 1182(a)(2) or 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), (B), (C), or (D) of this title, or any offense covered by section 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) of this title for which both predicate offenses are, without regard to their date of commission, otherwise covered by section 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) of this title. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C); see Balogun v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 425 F.3d 1356, 1359 (11th Cir. 2005) (explaining that our jurisdiction to review final orders of removal 8 was significantly restricted by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C)), cert. denied, __ U.S. __,126 S. Ct. 1920 (2006). Title 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(i) states that: Except as provided in clause (ii),3 any alien convicted of, or who admits having committed, or who admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of – (I) a crime involving moral turpitude (other than a purely political offense) or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime, or (II) a violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) any law or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of Title 21), is inadmissible. 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i). Nevertheless, we have held that §106(a)(1)(A(iii) of the REAL ID Act, as it relates to judicial review of orders of removal, expands our jurisdiction to allow consideration of constitutional claims and questions of law by way of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), which provides that: Nothing in subparagraph (B) or (C), or in any other provision of this Act (other than this section) which limits or eliminates judicial review, shall be construed as precluding review of constitutional claims or questions of law raised upon a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals in accordance with this section. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (as amended by REAL ID Act § 106(a)); see Balogun, 425 F.3d at 1359-60 (explaining that the REAL ID Act gave us jurisdiction to review a criminal alien’s petition for review of an order of removal raising a question of law). 3 The exception in clause (ii) applies only to aliens who have committed only one crime of moral turpitude as listed in (i)(I) and does not apply to those who have committed controlled substance offenses as listed in (i)(II). See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(ii). 9 Because Garcia does not challenge his own admission to possession of cannabis (a controlled substance offense) and concedes that he is removable on that basis, he is an inadmissable alien pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(i). Thus, to the extent Garcia is requesting that we review factual determinations by the IJ or BIA denying him withholding of removal under the INA and the CAT, we lack jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C) and the REAL ID Act to review such discretionary determinations, and we must dismiss the petition. See, e.g., Chacon Botero v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 427 F.3d 954, 957 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (holding that despite the expansion of jurisdiction provided by the REAL ID Act we do not have jurisdiction to address time bar issues, which are neither constitutional issues nor questions of law). However, as Garcia maintains, we have jurisdiction to review Garcia’s constitutional claim that his due process rights were violated during his removal hearing by the IJ’s alleged limiting of his presentation of evidence. We now review that issue.