Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Lilia Estrada Cristobal, a native and citizen of Mexico, sought review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision summarily affirming an immigration judge’s denial of cancellation of removal as a matter of discretion. She argued that the agency abused its discretion in denying relief.
Estrada Cristobal also asserted that she was denied due process because she never received a complete transcript of her merits hearing and because the immigration judge was biased against her. The Fifth Circuit declined to address her separate contention that a three-member BIA panel should have decided her administrative appeal because she did not include that contention in her statement of issues.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit dismissed the petition insofar as Estrada Cristobal challenged the agency’s discretionary denial of cancellation of removal. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), the court lacked jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that she did not merit a favorable exercise of discretion, and that determination was dispositive of her application.
The court recognized that § 1252(a)(2)(D) preserves review of constitutional claims and questions of law, but denied Estrada Cristobal’s due-process claims. Because cancellation of removal is purely discretionary relief, the court held that its denial did not deprive her of a protected liberty interest. The petition was therefore dismissed in part for lack of jurisdiction and denied in part.
Key Takeaways
- Federal courts lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that an applicant does not merit cancellation of removal.
- Although constitutional claims remain reviewable, denial of purely discretionary immigration relief does not itself deprive an applicant of a protected liberty interest.
- An argument omitted from the petitioner’s statement of issues may not be considered on appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the distinction between reviewable legal or constitutional questions and an unreviewable challenge to the agency’s exercise of discretion. Labeling objections to the cancellation process as due-process violations does not establish a viable constitutional claim when the asserted interest is solely in obtaining discretionary relief.