Background
The petitioner, originally from Azerbaijan, became a lawful permanent resident before being convicted in Pennsylvania for unlawful contact with a minor, a sexual offense, and indecent assault. The Government charged him with removability based on crimes of domestic violence and child abuse. An Immigration Judge sustained the removability charge and denied his application for cancellation of removal as a matter of discretion due to negative factors including his criminal history and failure to support his family. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the denial, acknowledging positive factors like his long residence but finding they did not outweigh the seriousness of his criminal conduct.
The court’s reasoning
The court reiterated that it generally lacks jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of cancellation of removal. However, it retains jurisdiction to review constitutional claims or questions of law, including whether the Board applied the correct standard of review. The petitioner argued the Board applied the wrong legal standard by considering a conviction not sustained as a removal ground, but the court found the Board may consider the noncitizen’s overall criminal history. The petitioner also claimed the Board failed to apply clear-error review to factual findings, but the court found the Board merely discussed facts already in the record. Finally, the court rejected arguments that the Board ignored family hardship or imposed an impossible evidentiary burden, noting these were challenges to the Board’s exercise of discretion rather than questions of law.
What it means going forward
This decision reinforces the jurisdictional bar on judicial review of discretionary immigration decisions, limiting federal courts to reviewing only pure questions of law or constitutional claims in cancellation of removal cases.