Narrative Opinion Summary
Jose Manuel Soto petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) decision from September 30, 2008, which denied his application for cancellation of removal under Section 240A(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The court lacks jurisdiction over Soto's petition under INA § 242(a)(2)(B)(i) because the BIA's denial was based solely on discretionary grounds related to Soto's repeated criminal activities, including multiple arrests and convictions. Soto did not present a colorable constitutional claim or a question of law, as any errors made by the immigration judge were addressed by the BIA, which reviewed the cancellation request de novo per 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii). The court cites precedents, including De La Vega v. Gonzales and Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, affirming that statutory provisions limit judicial review of discretionary decisions by the Attorney General in cancellation of removal cases. Consequently, the petition for review is dismissed.
Legal Issues Addressed
Discretionary Decisions in Immigration Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The BIA's decision to deny cancellation of removal based on discretionary factors such as criminal history is not subject to judicial review.
Reasoning: The BIA's denial was based solely on discretionary grounds related to Soto's repeated criminal activities, including multiple arrests and convictions.
Jurisdictional Limits on Judicial Reviewsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court cannot review the BIA's discretionary decisions regarding cancellation of removal as outlined in INA § 242(a)(2)(B)(i).
Reasoning: The court lacks jurisdiction over Soto's petition under INA § 242(a)(2)(B)(i) because the BIA's denial was based solely on discretionary grounds related to Soto's repeated criminal activities, including multiple arrests and convictions.
Precedents Limiting Judicial Review of BIA Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court relies on precedents that affirm statutory limits on judicial review of the Attorney General's discretionary decisions in cancellation of removal cases.
Reasoning: The court cites precedents, including De La Vega v. Gonzales and Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, affirming that statutory provisions limit judicial review of discretionary decisions by the Attorney General in cancellation of removal cases.
Review of Immigration Judge Errors by BIAsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The BIA conducted a de novo review of the immigration judge's decision, addressing any errors present, thus negating the need for further judicial intervention.
Reasoning: Soto did not present a colorable constitutional claim or a question of law, as any errors made by the immigration judge were addressed by the BIA, which reviewed the cancellation request de novo per 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii).