Background
Petitioner Adrian Villa-Ibarra, a native and citizen of Mexico, sought cancellation of removal and a motion to remand before an immigration judge. The Board of Immigration Appeals denied both the application for cancellation of removal and the motion to remand, concluding the petitioner did not demonstrate exceptional and extremely unusual hardship and did not warrant a favorable exercise of discretion.
The court’s reasoning
The court explained that where the Board conducts its own review, judicial review is limited to the Board’s decision. While the court has jurisdiction over constitutional claims and pure questions of law, it lacks jurisdiction over the Board’s discretionary denial of cancellation of removal under Section twelve hundred fifty-two subsection a two B one. The court also lacks jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion to remand when that denial rests on the same discretionary determination. Although Section twelve hundred fifty-two subsection a two D restores jurisdiction over constitutional claims, the court found Villa-Ibarra’s due process claims unsupported by the record. The court declined to address claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and a defective Notice to Appear because they were not exhausted.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the Ninth Circuit’s strict jurisdictional bar on reviewing discretionary immigration decisions and requires noncitizens to exhaust ineffective assistance of counsel claims through a motion to reopen before seeking judicial review.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download