Opinion ID: 166160
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Lanza v. Ashcroft

Text: 21 Petitioner relies on Lanza v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 917, 927-28 (9th Cir.2004), in which the Ninth Circuit held that it would be unconstitutional to look only to the IJ's opinion in determining circuit-court jurisdiction under § 1252 when the BIA has affirmed without opinion. The Lanza reasoning proceeds in three steps. 22 First, Lanza asserts that the grounds on which a final order of removal rests, and hence on which the right to review in our court depends, are the grounds that caused the BIA to affirm the order. If the BIA rejected the IJ's [nonreviewable] finding and affirmed on the [reviewable] merits, then Lanza has a statutory right to have a federal court review that decision—that is, the decision on the reviewable ground on which the BIA affirmed. Id. at 928. 23 Second, Lanza asserts that the right to judicial review is an interest of which an alien may not be deprived without due process of law. Thus, when the BIA does not state whether it has affirmed on reviewable grounds only, due process requires that the Court of Appeals either assume jurisdiction or remand to the BIA for clarification lest it unwittingly deny the alien the right to review that she would have enjoyed had the BIA affirmed on a reviewable ground and said so. Id. at 928. 24 Third, Lanza chose remanding rather than assuming jurisdiction because proceeding without remand risks the issuance of an advisory opinion that would have no effect on the judgment if it turned out that the BIA rested its decision on a nonreviewable ground. Id. at 929; see id. at 928-32 (expressing a concern to preserve the general presumption against federal court review and recognizing that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction). 25 We respectfully disagree. We find no right to judicial review in either the governing regulation or § 1252 that depends on the unstated grounds for the BIA's affirmance without opinion rather than the grounds stated in the IJ's opinion adopted by the BIA as the final agency decision. Nor does due process require that our jurisdiction turn on the BIA's reasoning rather than the IJ's decision. To explain our conclusion, we begin by describing the decisionmaking process with respect to the removal of aliens.