de la Cruz Orellana v. Sessions, 878 F.3d 1

Alfredo Flores (entered 1986) and Melvi Ayde de la Cruz‑Orellana (entered 1989 or 1992) are married and lived in Rhode Island with their son, Jonathan.
In March 2009 they applied for cancellation of removal and, alternatively, voluntary departure; eligibility for both remedies requires showing good moral character for statutory periods and cancellation also requires showing exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a child.
IJ found Cruz‑Orellana gave false asylum testimony in 1993 and reaffirmed it in 2007, later admitting the statements were false; IJ concluded she did not timely recant for cancellation purposes and treated the false testimony as an adverse discretionary factor for voluntary departure.
IJ also denied Flores voluntary departure in the exercise of discretion, partly relying on a 2000 domestic‑violence police report.
BIA affirmed, noting petitioners’ son turned 21 on appeal (making them ineligible for cancellation) and upholding the discretionary denials of voluntary departure.
Petitioners sought review in this court raising (1) recantation‑doctrine error (Cruz‑Orellana) and (2) due‑process/hearsay challenge to the police report (Flores); the court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether recantation doctrine bars use of prior false testimony in denying voluntary departure	Cruz‑Orellana: recantation should preclude consideration of her false testimony	Government: IJ may consider recanted false testimony when denying relief as discretionary matter	Denied jurisdiction — court explains recantation affects statutory eligibility but does not bind discretionary denial, so claim is not a colorable question of law for review
Whether reliance on hearsay police report violated due process in discretionary denial of voluntary departure	Flores: IJ’s reliance on police report containing hearsay deprived him of due process	Government: Voluntary departure is discretionary and confers no liberty or property interest	Denied jurisdiction — due‑process claim not colorable because voluntary departure is not a cognizable liberty or property interest

Arias‑Minaya v. Holder, 779 F.3d 49 (1st Cir.) (scope of judicial review of voluntary‑departure denials)
Ayeni v. Holder, 617 F.3d 67 (1st Cir.) (colorability requirement for legal or constitutional claims to invoke jurisdiction)
Jupiter v. Ashcroft, 396 F.3d 487 (1st Cir.) (voluntary departure is a discretionary privilege, not a protected liberty or property interest)