Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

jurisdictionappealmotionstatutory interpretation
jurisdictionappealmotionstatutory interpretation

Related Cases

Marrero v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Wilson
View Case »
Ayala v. U.S. Attorney Gen.
View Case »
Prekaj v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Oseguera-Madrigal; U.S. v.
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Galeano-Romero v. Barr

Facts

Reniery Adalberto Galeano-Romero, who had unlawfully resided in the U.S. since 2001, was taken into custody by the Department of Homeland Security after being indicted for assault. He conceded removability and sought cancellation of removal based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen. The IJ found that while his spouse would suffer hardship from his removal, it was not 'exceptional and extremely unusual.' Galeano-Romero appealed to the BIA, which affirmed the IJ's decision and denied his motion to remand for CAT relief.

Reniery Adalberto Galeano-Romero, who had unlawfully resided in the U.S. since 2001, was taken into custody by the Department of Homeland Security after being indicted for assault. He conceded removability and sought cancellation of removal based on his marriage to a U.S. citizen. The IJ found that while his spouse would suffer hardship from his removal, it was not 'exceptional and extremely unusual.' Galeano-Romero appealed to the BIA, which affirmed the IJ's decision and denied his motion to remand for CAT relief.

Issue

Did the court have jurisdiction to review the BIA's discretionary decision regarding the cancellation of removal and the motion to remand for CAT relief?

Did the court have jurisdiction to review the BIA's discretionary decision regarding the cancellation of removal and the motion to remand for CAT relief?

Rule

Under 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B), courts lack jurisdiction to review discretionary decisions regarding cancellation of removal. However, jurisdiction exists for constitutional claims and questions of law under 1252(a)(2)(D).

Under 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B), courts lack jurisdiction to review discretionary decisions regarding cancellation of removal. However, jurisdiction exists for constitutional claims and questions of law under 1252(a)(2)(D).

Analysis

The court determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's discretionary decision on cancellation of removal, as the alien did not raise a question of statutory interpretation or a constitutional claim. The BIA's finding that the hardship was not 'exceptional and extremely unusual' was deemed a discretionary decision, which the court could not review. The court also upheld the BIA's denial of the motion to remand for CAT relief, as the alien failed to provide new evidence.

The court determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's discretionary decision on cancellation of removal, as the alien did not raise a question of statutory interpretation or a constitutional claim. The BIA's finding that the hardship was not 'exceptional and extremely unusual' was deemed a discretionary decision, which the court could not review. The court also upheld the BIA's denial of the motion to remand for CAT relief, as the alien failed to provide new evidence.

Conclusion

The court dismissed the petition in part and denied it in part, affirming the BIA's decisions regarding cancellation of removal and the motion to remand.

The court dismissed the petition in part and denied it in part, affirming the BIA's decisions regarding cancellation of removal and the motion to remand.

Who won?

The BIA prevailed as the court upheld its decisions, finding no jurisdiction to review the discretionary aspects of the case.

The BIA prevailed as the court upheld its decisions, finding no jurisdiction to review the discretionary aspects of the case.

You must be