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

jurisdictionattorneymotionrespondentliensmotion to dismiss
jurisdictionattorneymotionrespondentliensmotion to dismiss

Related Cases

Siddiqui v. Cissna
View Case »
Ulysse v. Department of Homeland Security
View Case »
Le Reunion Aerienne v. Socialist People’s Libyan Arab
View Case »
Saakian v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Minker; U.S. v.
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Morales Ventura v. Ashcroft

Facts

Petitioners Jose Raul Morales Ventura and Maria Veronica Soloria Soloria, natives and citizens of Mexico, faced removal from the United States after unlawfully entering in 1989. They applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1), claiming that their removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to their U.S. citizen children and Mr. Morales Ventura's parents, who are permanent residents. The IJ found that while the petitioners met some requirements for cancellation, they failed to prove the necessary hardship.

Petitioners Jose Raul Morales Ventura and Maria Veronica Soloria Soloria, natives and citizens of Mexico, faced removal from the United States after unlawfully entering in 1989. They applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1), claiming that their removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to their U.S. citizen children and Mr. Morales Ventura's parents, who are permanent residents.

Issue

Whether the court has jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1).

Whether the court has jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1).

Rule

Under 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B), courts lack jurisdiction to review discretionary decisions regarding the granting of relief under certain sections, including 1229b.

Under 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B), courts lack jurisdiction to review discretionary decisions regarding the granting of relief under certain sections, including 1229b.

Analysis

The court determined that the issue of whether the aliens' removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship was a discretionary matter. The IJ's conclusion that the petitioners did not meet the hardship requirement was upheld, as the court found no basis for jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision.

The court determined that the issue of whether the aliens' removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship was a discretionary matter.

Conclusion

The court granted the Director's motion to dismiss the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The court granted the Director's motion to dismiss the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Who won?

The Respondent, United States Attorney General, prevailed because the court found it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision regarding the cancellation of removal.

The Respondent, United States Attorney General, prevailed because the court found it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision regarding the cancellation of removal.

You must be