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

jurisdictionattorneyvisacitizenshipdeportationjudicial reviewcredibility
jurisdictionattorneyvisacitizenshipdeportationjudicial reviewcredibility

Related Cases

Hashmi v. Mukasey
View Case »
Heitland, Matter of
View Case »
Baan Rao Thai Restaurant v. Pompeo
View Case »
Rodriguez Sanchez v. Decker
View Case »
Vera-Villegas v. Immigration and Naturalization Service
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Zajanckauskas v. Holder

Facts

Petitioners citizenship was revoked in 2005 because a district court found that he was deployed to Warsaw with a detachment of Trawniki-trained guards who participated in the Nazi liquidation of the Jewish ghetto there, and that he lied about his wartime whereabouts by concealing that fact in his application for an entry visa. Petitioner did not dispute the findings of fraud. Rather, he sought relief from removal in the form of a waiver under 8 U.S.C.S. 1227(a)(1)(H). The IJ applied collateral estoppel to the factual and legal conclusions made by the district court that revoked Petitioners citizenship and ordered Petitioner removed to Lithuania based on the charges against him.

Petitioners citizenship was revoked in 2005 because a district court found that he was deployed to Warsaw with a detachment of Trawniki-trained guards who participated in the Nazi liquidation of the Jewish ghetto there, and that he lied about his wartime whereabouts by concealing that fact in his application for an entry visa. Petitioner did not dispute the findings of fraud. Rather, he sought relief from removal in the form of a waiver under 8 U.S.C.S. 1227(a)(1)(H). The IJ applied collateral estoppel to the factual and legal conclusions made by the district court that revoked Petitioners citizenship and ordered Petitioner removed to Lithuania based on the charges against him.

Issue

Whether the court had jurisdiction to review the discretionary decision of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security regarding Petitioners deportation.

Whether the court had jurisdiction to review the discretionary decision of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security regarding Petitioners deportation.

Rule

8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) establishes that the court is without jurisdiction to review any discretionary decision of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security.

8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) establishes that the court is without jurisdiction to review any discretionary decision of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security.

Analysis

The court found that while some discretionary determinations present underlying, reviewable questions of law, this case did not fall into that category. The IJ's decision was based on factual determinations regarding Petitioners past actions and credibility, which are not subject to judicial review. Therefore, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the discretionary grounds for the IJ's decision.

The court found that while some discretionary determinations present underlying, reviewable questions of law, this case did not fall into that category. The IJ's decision was based on factual determinations regarding Petitioners past actions and credibility, which are not subject to judicial review. Therefore, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the discretionary grounds for the IJ's decision.

Conclusion

The court dismissed the petition for lack of appellate jurisdiction, affirming that the discretionary nature of the IJ's decision precluded any review.

The court dismissed the petition for lack of appellate jurisdiction, affirming that the discretionary nature of the IJ's decision precluded any review.

Who won?

The Government prevailed in the case because the court found it lacked jurisdiction to review the discretionary decision of the IJ.

The Government prevailed in the case because the court found it lacked jurisdiction to review the discretionary decision of the IJ.

You must be