Opinion ID: 2978336
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: Galicia’s claim for cancellation of removal raises a threshold question of jurisdiction. The Court generally lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determinations regarding cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). In addition, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), bars our consideration of any discretionary decision made in immigration cases, other than those relating to applications for asylum.3 Based on these principles, the government argues we cannot revisit the BIA’s ruling on Galicia’s cancellation of removal claim. See Santana-Albarran, 393 F.3d at 703 (stating § 1252(a)(2)(B) “specifically divests jurisdiction of a court to review judgments regarding the granting of discretionary relief, including the cancellation of removal”); Valenzuela Alcantar v. 3 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) states in relevant part, “no court shall have jurisdiction to review-- (i) any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section . . . 1229b [pertaining to cancellation of removal] 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) [pertaining to asylum] of this title.” Page 10 Case No. 08-4717 Galicia Del Valle v. Holder INS, 309 F.3d 946, 949-50 (6th Cir. 2002) (holding administrative determination regarding extreme hardship under prior, less stringent, “suspension of deportation” standard is considered a discretionary issue and not subject to judicial review). This Court has carved out an exception to the jurisdictional bar created by § 1252(a)(2)(B), however, when the petitioner claims the BIA ignored its own precedent in making its hardship determination. Aburto-Rocha v. Mukasey, 535 F.3d 500, 503 (6th Cir. 2008). Aburto-Rocha specifically held that “the choice by the BIA to disregard its own binding precedent-even when deciding an issue that is within its discretion-is not itself a discretionary decision Congress has excluded from review.” Id. Accordingly, in Aburto-Rocha, we found this Court had jurisdiction to review the petitioner’s claim that the BIA failed to follow its own precedent in deciding the hardship prong. Id. As with the petitioner in Aburto-Rocha, Galicia contends that the IJ, and, by extension, the BIA, failed to properly apply In re Recinas, 23 I. & N. Dec. 467 (BIA 2002), when evaluating his cancellation of removal application. Specifically, Galicia argues, “[t]he IJ made numerous errors in evaluation of the hardship involved . . . . Despite the IJ’s conclusion to the contrary, Mr. Galicia’s case is very similar to the respondent in In re Recinas.” Galicia Br. 15. Rather than merely challenge the discretionary matter of weighing of the evidence, Galicia effectively contends the agency ignored its own precedent in arriving at its conclusion. This argument provides us with jurisdiction to review Galicia’s petition. See Aburto-Rocha, 535 F.3d at 503.