Opinion ID: 43314
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Real ID Act

Text: 22 In response to the Respondent's jurisdictional argument, Wilmore asserts that the language of the Real ID Act, which became effective in May 2005, has expanded our jurisdiction. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (Supp. V 2005). Section 1252(a)(2)(D), as amended by the Real ID Act, is entitled Judicial Review of Certain Legal Claims and provides that: 23 Nothing in subparagraph (B) or (C), or in any other provision of this chapter (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. 24 This Court has explained that the Real ID Act removes jurisdictional bars to direct review of questions of law in final removal, deportation, and exclusion orders. Rodriguez-Castro v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 316, 319 (5th Cir.2005) (citations omitted). 25 Subsequent to the above amendment, this Court recently joined a number of our sister circuits in holding that we lack jurisdiction over petitions for review concerning the discretionary denial of relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1255. Hadwani v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 798, 800 (5th Cir.2006). 4 Hadwani expressly recognized that the Real ID Act amended 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2) to ensure that this court retains jurisdiction over `constitutional claims or questions of law' raised in an alien's petition for review. Id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D)). The present case does not raise a constitutional or legal question. As previously set forth, § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), the jurisdiction-stripping provision, lists, among others, the instant § 1229b along with § 1255, which was at issue in Hadwani. Thus, despite recognizing the Real ID language, this Court found it did not have jurisdiction to review the discretionary decision made pursuant to § 1255. Likewise, in the instant case, the Real ID Act does not provide this court with jurisdiction to review the BIA's determination with respect to `extreme cruelty.' Perales-Cumpean, 429 F.3d at 982 n. 4. Therefore, we must dismiss this petition for lack of jurisdiction. 5