Court Opinion

ID: 9381206
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-22 14:00:42.362521+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:30.745600
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-11239   Document: 17-1      Date Filed: 03/22/2023    Page: 1 of 6

                                                  [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                   In the
                United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                                No. 22-11239
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

       HAL MERVIN RUST,
                                                               Petitioner,
       versus
       U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

                                                              Respondent.

                         ____________________

                   Petition for Review of a Decision of the
                        Board of Immigration Appeals
                          Agency No. A058-869-804
                          ____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-11239      Document: 17-1       Date Filed: 03/22/2023     Page: 2 of 6

       2                       Opinion of the Court                  22-11239

       Before NEWSOM, BRANCH, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
       PER CURIAM:
               Hal Rust petitions for review of the Board of Immigration
       Appeals’ (BIA) affirmance of the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of
       his application for a good-faith-marriage waiver of the requirement
       to file a joint petition to remove conditions on his lawful perma-
       nent residence. Rust argues that the IJ and BIA weighed the evi-
       dence incorrectly and failed to consider the evidence that he pro-
       vided in support of his argument that the marriage was entered
       into in good faith.
                                          I
              We have an obligation to inquire into our own jurisdiction
       sua sponte and review jurisdictional questions de novo. Bing Quan
       Lin v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 881 F.3d 860, 866 (11th Cir. 2018).
              We lack jurisdiction to review “any judgment regarding”
       certain forms of discretionary relief. See Immigration and Nation-
       ality Act (INA) § 242(a)(2)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). We re-
       tain jurisdiction to review constitutional or legal claims. INA
       § 242(a)(2)(D), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). The scope of that jurisdic-
       tion extends only to colorable questions of law and constitutional
       claims. Arias v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 482 F.3d 1281, 1284 & n.2 (11th
       Cir. 2007) (per curiam); Patel v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 971 F.3d 1258, 1275
       (11th Cir. 2020) (en banc) (clarifying that a legal claim must also be
       colorable), aff’d sub nom., Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614 (2022).
USCA11 Case: 22-11239     Document: 17-1     Date Filed: 03/22/2023    Page: 3 of 6

       22-11239               Opinion of the Court                       3

       We have held that petitioners may not mask “a garden-variety
       abuse-of-discretion argument—which can be made by virtually
       every alien subject to a final removal order”—as a constitutional or
       legal claim in order to invoke our jurisdiction. Alvarez Acosta v.
       U.S. Att’y Gen., 524 F.3d 1191, 1196–97 (11th Cir. 2008). We have
       called claims that the IJ improperly weighed the evidence “garden-
       variety abuse of discretion argument[s] that [are] insufficient to
       state a legal or constitutional claim.” Fynn v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 752
       F.3d 1250, 1252 (11th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (quotation marks
       omitted). But whether the agency failed to give reasoned consid-
       eration to an issue is a question of law. Jeune v. U.S. Att’y Gen.,
       810 F.3d 792, 799 (11th Cir. 2016). The agency does not need to
       specifically address each claim made or each piece of evidence pre-
       sented, but it must consider all the evidence submitted. Id. at 803.
              A non-citizen who marries a United States citizen will obtain
       conditional residency status.        INA § 216(a)(1), 8 U.S.C.
       § 1186a(a)(1). The non-citizen can have the conditions removed
       upon filing a joint petition with his citizen spouse 90 days before
       their second anniversary. INA § 216(c)(1)(A), (d)(2)(A), 8 U.S.C.
       § 1186a(c)(1)(A), (d)(2)(A).
              Section 1186a(c)(4) provides that the Secretary of Homeland
       Security, “in the Secretary’s discretion, may remove the condi-
       tional basis of the permanent resident status for an alien” who
       demonstrates that “the qualifying marriage was entered into in
       good faith by the alien spouse, but the qualifying marriage has been
       terminated.”     INA § 216(c)(4)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4)(B)
USCA11 Case: 22-11239       Document: 17-1      Date Filed: 03/22/2023      Page: 4 of 6

       4                       Opinion of the Court                   22-11239

       (emphasis added). The statute further provides that “[t]he deter-
       mination of what evidence is credible and the weight to be given
       that evidence shall be within the sole discretion of the Secretary of
       Homeland Security.” INA § 216(c)(4), 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4).
              In Fynn v. U.S. Attorney General, we held that we lacked
       jurisdiction to review evidence-weighing challenges to a denial of
       a good-faith-marriage waiver to the joint-filing requirement under
       the jurisdictional bar to discretionary determinations in INA
       § 242(a)(2)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), based on the plain lan-
       guage of INA § 216(c)(4), 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4). 752 F.3d at 1252–
       53. We also determined that we lacked jurisdiction to consider that
       petitioner’s argument that the IJ failed to consider certain probative
       testimony because he was essentially challenging the agency’s
       credibility determination and weighing of the evidence. Id. at 1253.
              Rust frames his brief as a challenge to the agency’s decision
       because it was not based on “substantial evidence.” But “[a] rea-
       soned-consideration examination does not look to whether the
       agency’s decision is supported by substantial evidence.” Jeune, 810
       F.3d at 803. Instead, a reasoned-consideration inquiry is a question
       of law that we retain jurisdiction to examine under § 1252. Id. at
       799. So, to the extent that Rust challenges the agency’s discretion-
       ary decision to deny his waiver on the ground that it was unsup-
       ported by “substantial evidence,” this is the type of evidence-
       weighing challenge that we lack jurisdiction to review under Fynn.
       752 F.3d at 1252–53.
USCA11 Case: 22-11239      Document: 17-1     Date Filed: 03/22/2023     Page: 5 of 6

       22-11239               Opinion of the Court                         5

              To the extent that Rust now seeks to present a reasoned-ex-
       amination challenge, he faces two barriers. First, we think it likely
       that he has abandoned any argument to that effect. A party aban-
       dons an argument when he only makes “passing references” to the
       issue. Lapaix v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 605 F.3d 1138, 1145 (11th Cir.
       2010). Rust’s brief cites Seck v. U.S. Attorney General, 663 F.3d
       1356, 1368 (11th Cir. 2011), for the proposition that the “BIA is re-
       quired to consider all the evidence submitted by the applicant.”
       Brief of Pet. at 10. The citation is buried in a broader argument
       that the IJ and BIA failed to properly consider Rust’s brother’s tes-
       timony about Rust’s bona fide marriage.
              Even if Rust preserved the argument, it fails on the merits.
       The IJ summarized Rust’s brother’s testimony in a paragraph in its
       opinion. The IJ was not required to expressly address the testi-
       mony in its analysis. Jeune, 810 F.3d at 803 (“[W]hile the agency is
       required to consider all evidence that a petitioner has submitted, it
       need not address specifically each claim the petitioner made or
       each piece of evidence the petitioner presented.” (quotation marks
       omitted)).
                                         II
              We lack jurisdiction to review Rust’s substantial-evidence
       arguments, which challenge the agency’s discretionary decision to
       deny his waiver and raise no colorable legal or constitutional issues.
       His brief forfeits any reasoned-examination challenge; and even if
       he raised one it would fail. Rust only challenges the IJ’s weighing
USCA11 Case: 22-11239     Document: 17-1      Date Filed: 03/22/2023    Page: 6 of 6

       6                      Opinion of the Court                22-11239

       of the evidence and fails to show that the IJ ignored evidence in the
       record.
             PETITION DISMISSED.