Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves a native of Ecuador, referred to as Calva, who faces removal from the United States under INA § 212(a)(6)(A) due to being present in the country without admission or parole. The Department of Homeland Security initiated removal proceedings against him, and Calva sought cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(b)(1), arguing that his removal would cause exceptional hardship to his two U.S. citizen daughters. Despite having met certain eligibility criteria, the Immigration Judge (IJ) determined that Calva did not meet the requisite standard of 'exceptional and extremely unusual hardship' and granted him voluntary departure instead. Calva's appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals was dismissed, with the Board affirming the IJ's findings. Calva subsequently petitioned for review, challenging the evaluation of the hardship claim. However, the petition for review was dismissed due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the court is barred from reviewing discretionary determinations concerning cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B). The court concluded that the Board's decision to deny relief was reasonable and supported by precedent, thus upholding the dismissal of the petition.
Legal Issues Addressed
Cancellation of Removal under INA § 240A(b)(1)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Calva sought cancellation of removal, asserting that his removal would cause exceptional hardship to his daughters.
Reasoning: Calva sought cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(b)(1) and voluntary departure, arguing his removal would cause exceptional hardship to his daughters.
Comparison with Precedent Casessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Calva's case was differentiated from Matter of Recinas due to factors such as family support and the number of children.
Reasoning: Calva's situation was differentiated from that in Matter of Recinas, where hardship was established, based on factors such as family support and the number of children.
Exceptional and Extremely Unusual Hardshipsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The IJ ruled that economic disparity between the U.S. and Ecuador alone did not constitute 'extremely unusual hardship.'
Reasoning: While acknowledging the economic disparity between the U.S. and Ecuador, the IJ ruled that this alone did not constitute 'extremely unusual hardship.'
Jurisdiction to Review Discretionary Decisionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court lacks jurisdiction over discretionary decisions related to cancellation of removal, as established by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B).
Reasoning: Jurisdiction exists to review final orders of removal under INA § 242(a), but 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) removes jurisdiction over discretionary decisions related to cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b.
Removability under INA § 212(a)(6)(A)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Calva is deemed removable for being present in the U.S. without admission or parole.
Reasoning: Santos Tomas Calva, a native of Ecuador, is deemed removable under INA § 212(a)(6)(A) for being present in the U.S. without admission or parole.