Alabi v. Garland, 21-9514

Folarin Alabi, a Nigerian national, became a conditional permanent resident on August 6, 2010, based on marriage to U.S. citizen Kimberly Straughter.
A joint petition to remove conditions was filed in June 2012; Straughter withdrew support, stating the marriage was over and alleging the marriage was for immigration purposes; divorce finalized July 2013.
USCIS terminated Alabi’s conditional residence (Oct. 7, 2013). Alabi was later indicted and in April 2017 convicted of conspiracy to commit marriage fraud and aiding and abetting marriage fraud.
Alabi applied for a § 1186a(c)(4) waiver (claiming extreme hardship and formerly good faith); USCIS denied the waiver for lack of good faith and later denied extreme-hardship relief (finding relevant hardship period ended Aug. 6, 2012) and, alternatively, denied relief in the exercise of discretion.
The IJ and then the BIA reviewed the issues on remand; the IJ found no extreme hardship within the two-year conditional period and denied relief in the exercise of discretion even if hardship were established; the BIA affirmed the discretionary denial.
The Tenth Circuit dismissed Alabi’s petition for review for lack of jurisdiction, declining to reach the contested temporal-scope question as unnecessary to the outcome.

Issue	Alabi’s Argument	Government’s Argument	Held
Whether court can review denial of § 1186a(c)(4) waiver where BIA denied relief in its discretion	BIA’s discretionary denial should be reviewable or raised legal error in IJ’s temporal ruling	Denial in the exercise of discretion is committed to agency discretion and not judicially reviewable	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the BIA exercised discretionary authority
Proper temporal scope for assessing "extreme hardship" (which dates count)	Relevant period extends at least until USCIS’s termination notice (Aug. 6, 2010–Oct. 7, 2013) so child's post-2012 hardships count	Relevant period limited to the two-year conditional-residence term (Aug. 6, 2010–Aug. 6, 2012)	Court declined to decide—issue was not necessary to resolution because discretionary denial controlled
Whether IJ/BIA improperly excluded or failed to weigh hardship to Alabi’s U.S.‑citizen autistic child	Excluding post-2012 child hardship tainted the discretionary balancing	IJ considered the child’s evidence; discretionary balance remained adverse given criminal and fraud findings	Court held record shows the IJ and BIA did consider the child’s hardship; court will not reweigh discretionary balancing

Iliev v. Holder, 613 F.3d 1019 (10th Cir. 2010) (courts lack jurisdiction to review discretionary denials of extreme‑hardship waivers)
INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24 (U.S. 1976) (courts need not decide issues unnecessary to the outcome)
Griffin v. Davies, 929 F.2d 550 (10th Cir. 1991) (federal courts will not decide issues that do not affect the dispute's outcome)