Opinion ID: 3000216
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: A. We will treat this matter as a petition for review. Shortly after Cervantes de Hernandez filed her appeal from the district court’s decision denying her petition for a writ of habeas corpus, the REAL ID Act took effect. The Act does not set forth how a court of appeals should treat an appeal from a district court’s denial of a request for habeas relief brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 that was pending in the appellate court when the Act took effect. We have, however, joined other circuits in concluding that these claims should also be treated as petitions for review. Padilla v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1209, 1213 (7th Cir. 2006) (citing Gonzales-Gomez v. Achim, 441 F.3d 532, 533 (7th Cir. 2006); Rosales v. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 426 F.3d 733, 736 (5th Cir. 2005); Alvarez-Barajas v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2005); Bonhometre v. Gonzales, 414 F.3d 442 (3d Cir.2005)). Both parties agree that this is the proper course. The REAL ID Act nullified the district court’s ruling on Cervantes de Hernandez’s habeas petition, and we will review her case as a petition for review. See Padilla, 470 F.3d at 1213. B. Cervantes de Hernandez’s challenges to the denials of her requests for adjustment of status and a waiver of inadmissibility do not succeed. Cervantes de Hernandez presents two arguments to us. First, she contends that the IJ’s failure to explicitly determine the materiality and willfulness of the misrepresentation on her I-485 form denied her due process. Second, she argues that when the IJ denied her request for a waiver of inadmissibility, the IJ 1 In her arguments to this court, Cervantes de Hernandez does not contest the denial of her motion to reopen. No. 05-2345 Page 4 improperly balanced the equities instead of determining whether she had suffered extreme hardship. She also contends this procedure denied her due process. The government submits that we lack jurisdiction to consider either of these arguments. The Immigration and Nationality Act states that appellate courts may not review “(i) any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section 1182(h), 1182(i), 1229b, 1229c, or 1255 of this title, or (ii) any other decision or action of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security the authority for which is specified under this [subchapter] to be in the discretion of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security, other than the granting of relief under section 1158(a) of this title.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B). Both Cervantes de Hernandez’s request for adjustment of status (8 U.S.C. § 1255) and request for a waiver of inadmissibility (8 U.S.C. § 1182(i)) fall within this provision. The REAL ID Act, however, 2005, qualifies this jurisdiction-stripping provision with a new provision that provides: 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. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). As a result, we may review constitutional claims and “questions of law” presented in final removal orders. Hamdan v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 1051, 1057 (7th Cir. 2005). Cervantes de Hernandez labels her claims as constitutional due process claims, and aliens have a constitutional right to due process in immigration proceedings. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 306 (1993); Giday v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 543, 547 (7th Cir. 2006). Even so, “no due process challenge may be made unless the challenger has been (or is threatened with being) deprived of life, liberty, or property.” Cevilla, 446 F.3d 658, 662 (7th Cir. 2006). As a result, we concluded in Cevilla that “an alien’s right to due process does not extend to proceedings that provide only . . . discretionary relief.” Id. (quoting Hamdan v. Gonzales, 425 F.3d 1051, 1060-61)); see also Dave v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 649, 653 (7th Cir. 2004).
Cervantes de Hernandez’s challenge to the denial of her request for adjustment of status does not present a colorable due process claim. Because adjustment of status is a discretionary form of relief, an alien’s right to due process does not extend to requests for such relief. Hamdan, 425 F.3d at 1051. And even if we could consider this claim, the record does not reflect that she was denied due process. Cervantes de Hernandez does not contend, for example, that she did not receive an opportunity to present evidence suggesting that the answer on her I-485 form was not a material misrepresentation. Cf. Rodriguez Galicia v. Gonzales, 422 F.3d 529, 538 (7th Cir. 2005) (due process requires that aliens receive a meaningful No. 05-2345 Page 5 opportunity to be heard and to present evidence on their behalf). Rather, she disagrees with the IJ’s conclusion that she made a material misrepresentation on the form. This argument raises a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the IJ’s determination, not a due process claim. See Cevilla, 446 F.3d at 661 (application of law to facts does not constitute a reviewable due process claim). As a result, this challenge cannot succeed.
Due process also does not extend to Cervantes de Hernandez’s request for a waiver of inadmissibility. The provision under which she seeks a waiver, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i)(1), provides: The Attorney General may, in the discretion of the Attorney General, waive the application of clause (i) of subsection (a)(6)(C) of this section in the case of an immigrant who is the spouse, son, or daughter of a United States citizen or of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence if it is established to the satisfaction of the Attorney General that the refusal of admission to the United States of such immigrant alien would result in extreme hardship to the citizen . . . . First, like an adjustment of status, the waiver of inadmissibility that Cervantes de Hernandez seeks is a discretionary form of relief. See Vasile v. Gonzales, 417 F.3d 766, 768 (7th Cir. 2005) (“Permissive language that refers to demonstrating something to the agency’s ‘satisfaction’ is inherently discretionary.”). In addition, Cervantes de Hernandez’s contention that the IJ did not determine whether she or her family members would suffer “extreme hardship” if her request was denied does not aid her due process argument. We considered a similar argument in Cevilla and concluded that “even if all the statutory criteria, including extreme hardship, are present” we would still lack jurisdiction to review the due process challenge “because [the criteria] are merely preconditions to asking the government to exercise discretion in the government’s favor.” 446 F.3d at 662. Although Cevilla addressed cancellation of removal and not a waiver of inadmissibility, the same principle applies here. Because a waiver of inadmissibility is discretionary, even if Cervantes de Hernandez had shown extreme hardship, we could not review her due process challenge. We have, however, reviewed as “questions of law” challenges to whether the correct legal standard was applied to a claim. See Ali v. Achim, 468 F.3d 462, 465 (7th Cir. 2006). Cervantes de Hernandez maintains that the IJ used an improper standard when it denied her request for a waiver of inadmissibility, as she contends the IJ should have determined whether she suffered extreme hardship. Although a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i) now requires a showing of extreme hardship, see Cervantes-Gonzales v. I.N.S., 244 F.3d 1001, 1004 (9th Cir. 2001), the statute does not make a waiver of inadmissibility automatic upon an extreme hardship demonstration. Rather, as in the cancellation of removal relief at issue in Cevilla, a showing of “extreme hardship” is only one of the “preconditions to No. 05-2345 Page 6 asking the government to exercise discretion in its favor.” 446 F.3d at 662; see 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i). We do not find that the IJ applied an improper standard in this case. The IJ’s order explicitly set forth the proper “extreme hardship” standard and listed factors in a determination of whether “extreme hardship” exists. The IJ then stated that he would “pretermit threshold issues of eligibility for relief” and deny the waiver in the exercise of his discretion. The IJ noted that although Cervantes de Hernandez’s family ties would ordinarily outweigh many other considerations, the IJ’s conclusion that her testimony was “neither altogether truthful nor candid” led it to deny her request for a waiver. In support of this conclusion, the IJ pointed to her testimony that although she testified she did not know what Roberto Salas was doing while he lived at her home, she admitted that over $1000 was found in her bedroom and that a copier, cameras, a laminator, and counterfeit Social Security cards and resident alien cards were found in her home. The IJ concluded that the presence of these items suggested that she had more knowledge about the falsification of United States identification documents than her testimony on direct examination reflected. The IJ’s analysis does not reflect an improper failure to determine whether Cervantes de Hernandez had demonstrated “extreme hardship.” Instead, it demonstrates that the IJ decided that even if Cervantes de Hernandez met statutory threshold issues of eligibility such as extreme hardship, the IJ denied her request in the exercise of its discretion. As a result, the IJ did not apply an improper standard to Cervantes de Hernandez’s request for a waiver of inadmissibility.