Narrative Opinion Summary
In this immigration case, the petitioner, a native and citizen of Mexico, challenged the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision to streamline his appeal and uphold an immigration judge's determination denying him cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). The petitioner argued that the streamlining of his appeal violated his due process rights, a challenge deferred pending a decision in Falcon-Carriche v. Ashcroft. His petition was denied concerning his claim of 'exceptional and extremely unusual hardship,' as such determinations are discretionary and beyond judicial review pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), as supported by precedent in Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft. Furthermore, the court dismissed his due process claims for lack of jurisdiction, referencing Torres-Aguilar v. INS. The court's final disposition vacated and deferred the submission regarding the due process challenge in part, and denied the petition in part, with the decision not intended for publication except under the specific rule of the Ninth Circuit.
Legal Issues Addressed
Cancellation of Removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The immigration judge found Madrigal ineligible for cancellation of removal, and the Board upheld this decision.
Reasoning: Madrigal seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision ... to uphold the immigration judge's finding that he does not qualify for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1).
Judicial Review of Discretionary Decisions under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Madrigal's claim of 'exceptional and extremely unusual hardship' is deemed a discretionary decision not subject to judicial review.
Reasoning: Madrigal's petition is denied regarding his claim of 'exceptional and extremely unusual hardship,' as this is a discretionary decision not subject to judicial review per 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).
Jurisdiction Over Due Process Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court lacks jurisdiction to review Madrigal's due process argument.
Reasoning: The court also finds Madrigal's due process argument unreviewable due to lack of jurisdiction, citing Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir. 2001).
Streamlining of Appeals under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(7)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Board of Immigration Appeals streamlined Madrigal's appeal, which is under review.
Reasoning: Tomas Madrigal, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision to streamline his appeal under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(a)(7).