Court Opinion

ID: 9804116
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 16:23:16.659654+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:04:04.767471
License: Public Domain

Judge RAKOFF,
concurring in the judgment:
This may be in the nature of a quibble, but I understand the petitioner to present two independent claims: first, that the denial by the Board of Immigration Appeals of the discretionary relief he sought should be reversed because it was based on factual error, and, second, that the government’s alleged misconduct in proceedings before the Immigration Judge violated petitioner’s due process rights. Under Section 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, we lack jurisdiction to review “any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section 1182(h) [waiver of inadmissibility] ... or 1255 [adjustment of status] of this title” unless the petitioner raises “constitutional claims or questions of law.” 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(B), (D). Petitioner’s first claim raises no such constitutional or legal question, and so must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. As for his second claim, I would find that it presents at least a “colorable constitutional claim[],” Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 921 (9th Cir.2007); however, for the reasons identified by the majority, it fails on the merits and accordingly should be denied.