Opinion ID: 1444902
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The agency's denial of petitioner's application for a waiver of inadmissibility

Text: The IJ denied petitioner's application for a waiver of inadmissibility pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i) upon concluding that petitioner's evidence did not suggest that (1) she would suffer extreme hardship if removed to Nigeria or (2) a favorable exercise of discretion was otherwise warranted. In her submissions to our Court, petitioner contends that the record does not support the agency's conclusion that she would not suffer severe hardship if removed to Nigeria. She also contends that the agency lacked a valid reason for denying her the benefit of a favorable exercise of discretion. The determination that an applicant for section 1182(i) relief has failed to meet the extreme hardship requirement set forth therein involves factual and discretionary decisions. See, e.g., Camara v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 497 F.3d 121, 124 (2d Cir.2007). As we have observed on numerous occasions, we lack jurisdiction to review challenges to factual and discretionary determinations . . . unless the petitioner raises a constitutional claim or a question of law. Id. [Petitioner's] arguments that the agency's decision was not supported by substantial evidence and was clearly erroneous represent `quarrels over the [exercise of discretion and the] correctness of the factual findings' reached by the agency. Id. (quoting Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 329 (2d Cir.2006)). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review petitioner's challenge to the denial of her application for section 1182(i) relief.