Opinion ID: 625910
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: We review questions concerning our jurisdiction de novo. Lara-Ruiz v. INS, 241 F.3d 934, 939 (7th Cir.2001). Applications for cancellation of removal orders are permitted under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b, a provision of the INA. Another INA provision8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) clearly establishes that no court shall have jurisdiction to review ... any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section ... 1229b ... of this title. See also Mireles v. Gonzales, 433 F.3d 965, 968 (7th Cir.2006) (Decisions under § 1229b are not reviewable by the federal judiciary.). We therefore lack jurisdiction to review Delgado's claim that the IJ and BIA incorrectly held that his children would experience exceptional and unusual hardship if Delgado were to move to Mexico. The door-closing provision found in § 1252(a)(2)(B) is, however, subject to an exception found in § 1252(a)(2)(D), which states, Nothing in subparagraph (B) or (C) ... shall be construed as precluding review of constitutional claims or questions of law.... Thus, we have jurisdiction to hear any constitutional or legal challenge Delgado brings against the BIA's decision. As noted above, Delgado has brought a due process challenge against the IJ and BIA's determinations. We turn now to those arguments.