Bedoya-Melendez v. U.S. Attorney General
680 F.3d 1321
| 11th Cir. | 2012Background
- Bedoya-Melendez, a Peruvian citizen, entered the U.S. in 2003 as a nonimmigrant visitor; he married U.S. citizen Nancy Pinedo in 2004; marriage quickly deteriorated with alleged abuse and false HIV accusations; the couple separated and divorced; DHS sought removal while Bedoya-Melendez sought asylum, then withdrew the petition; in 2007 Bedoya-Melendez sought special rule cancellation under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2) claiming battered-spouse status; Board denied relief based on the battered-spouse element, and Bedoya-Melendez petitioned this court for review; the issue concerns whether the battered-spouse determination is a question of law or a discretionary decision and whether Bedoya-Melendez qualifies under the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the battered-spouse determination under §1229b(b)(2) a question of law or a discretionary decision? | Bedoya-Melendez argues it is a legal standard applicable to review. | The Attorney General argues it is a discretionary determination. | Discretionary decision; court lacks jurisdiction to review. |
| If discretionary, can the court review Bedoya-Melendez’s battered-spouse status? | Petitioner contends the Board’s findings should be reviewable for legal error. | Board outcomes are not reviewable on discretionary determinations under §1252(a)(2)(B). | No jurisdiction to review the Board's battered-spouse determination. |
Key Cases Cited
- INS v. Wang, 450 U.S. 139 (1981) (court refused to substitute its judgment on non-self-explanatory hardship standard)
- Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2001) (held 'extreme hardship' review is discretionary)
- Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 1997) (defined continuous presence; reviewed differently from discretionary terms)
- Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 824 (9th Cir. 2003) (held objective standard for battered-spouse was possible but rejected here)
- Rosario v. Holder, 627 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 2010) (battered-spouse determination treated as discretionary)
- Johnson v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 602 F.3d 508 (3d Cir. 2010) (discretionary view of battered-spouse standard recommended)
- Stepanovic v. Filip, 554 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 2009) (discretionary interpretation of battered-spouse standard)
- Wilmore v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 524 (5th Cir. 2006) (recognizes discretionary construction of 'extreme hardship')
- Perales-Cumpean v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 977 (10th Cir. 2005) (noted lack of objective standard and review for discretion)
- Cadet v. Bulger, 377 F.3d 1173 (11th Cir. 2004) (regulatory definitions can create standards but not here)