Opinion ID: 3062264
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Legal Background on Jurisdiction

Text: Under Article III, Mr. Castillo must establish standing by demonstrating “(1) that he . . . has ‘suffered an injury in fact;’ (2) that the injury is ‘fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant;’ and, (3) that it is ‘likely’ that ‘the injury will be U.S.C. § 1101(a)(48)(A). We consider whether that argument is colorable, even though he did not raise this constitutional challenge to the statute before the BIA, under the exception noted by Vicente-Elias. -4- redressed by a favorable decision.’” Awad v. Ziriax, 670 F.3d 1111, 1120 (10th Cir. 2012) (quoting Ariz. Christian Sch. Tuition Org. v. Winn, 131 S. Ct. 1436, 1442 (2011)). Redressability requires the party seeking relief to show “it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 181 (2000); see Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Envtl. Study Grp., Inc., 438 U.S. 59, 75 n.20 (1978) (requiring “substantial likelihood . . . the relief requested will redress the injury claimed” (quotations omitted)). “This requirement assures that there is a real need to exercise the power of judicial review in order to protect the interests of the complaining party.” Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 493 (2009) (quotations omitted).
Under the INA, we generally lack “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).” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C); see 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) (authorizing the removal of a noncitizen having a CIMT). But “[n]othing in . . . [§ 1252(a)(2)](C) . . . shall be construed as precluding review of constitutional claims or questions of law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). We therefore have jurisdiction to review Mr. Castillo’s CIMT-based removal only if he raises colorable “constitutional or legal challenges to the order.” Waugh v. Holder, 642 F.3d 1279, 1281 (10th Cir. 2011). -5-