Crooks-Richards v. Attorney General United States
666 F. App'x 169
3rd Cir.2016Background
- Petitioner Erik Anthony Crooks-Richards, a Costa Rican national admitted as a lawful permanent resident in 1989, lived in the U.S. continuously and is the sole provider for his U.S. citizen wife, four U.S. citizen children, and a naturalized U.S. citizen mother.
- Criminal history: 2005 manslaughter conviction (incarcerated 2005–2008); three DUI convictions between 2009–2014 (six months jail for the third); 2015 conviction for theft by deception.
- Placed in removal proceedings and conceded removability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) for two crimes involving moral turpitude.
- Applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a); IJ found him statutorily eligible but denied relief in the exercise of discretion after weighing positive equities against his criminal record.
- BIA reviewed and conducted its own discretionary balancing, affirmed the IJ’s denial, and dismissed the appeal; Crooks-Richards timely petitioned for review in this Court.
Issues
| Issue | Crooks-Richards’ Argument | Government/BIA Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IJ’s discretionary denial of cancellation of removal was unsupported by substantial evidence or an abuse of discretion | IJ failed to properly consider all favorable evidence (good moral character, hardship to U.S. relatives) and abused discretion | IJ and BIA properly weighed equities against criminal history; discretionary denials are not reviewable here | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction to review discretionary weighing |
| Whether BIA erred in affirming IJ by failing to give full consideration or apply correct legal standard | BIA did not fully reconsider or properly apply the legal standard | BIA reviewed factual findings for clear error and conducted an independent, proper discretionary analysis | Petition challenging BIA’s application of law and discretion dismissed |
| Whether this Court has jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial | Crooks-Richards frames alleged legal errors to invoke review | Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), Court lacks jurisdiction over discretionary cancellation decisions absent colorable constitutional or legal questions | Court lacks jurisdiction; challenges to discretionary balancing are not reviewable |
| Whether any legal question in the record warrants de novo review | Crooks-Richards contends IJ committed legal error (abuse of discretion) by not considering evidence | Court: claims are essentially disputes over discretionary factfinding, not pure questions of law | No justiciable legal question shown; de novo review not available |
Key Cases Cited
- Huang v. Attorney General, 620 F.3d 372 (3d Cir. 2010) (when BIA issues a separate opinion, appellate review focuses on the BIA’s decision)
- Mendez-Reyes v. Attorney General, 428 F.3d 187 (3d Cir. 2005) (limits on judicial review of discretionary immigration decisions)
- Mendez-Moranchel v. Ashcroft, 338 F.3d 176 (3d Cir. 2003) (jurisdictional bar to review discretionary cancellation decisions)
- Cospito v. Attorney General of U.S., 539 F.3d 166 (3d Cir. 2008) (claims that merely contest discretionary determinations are not reviewable)
- Emokah v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2008) (discussing distinction between legal questions and nonreviewable discretionary fact disputes)