Elias Jimenez-Galicia v. U.S. Attorney General
690 F.3d 1207
11th Cir.2012Background
- Petitioner Elias Jimenez-Galieia, a native of El Salvador, seeks review of a BIA order affirming an IJ removal order and denial of NACARA special-rule cancellation based on lack of good moral character.
- IJ found lack of good moral character due to multiple DUI convictions, multiple driving with suspended license convictions, and arrests while pending before the IJ.
- BIA reviewed de novo, weighed Petitioner's positive factors (business ownership, real property, tax payments, church attendance, family support) against the criminal history and found lack of good moral character under the catchall provision.
- BIA rejected an alleged psychiatric alcohol dependency as a factor that would excuse Petitioner's conduct.
- Petitioner argues for review of the BIA’s discretionary decision, but the court sua sponte addresses jurisdiction constraints under 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and the REAL ID Act.
- Issue presented is whether the court has jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination that Petitioner lacks good moral character for NACARA cancellation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to review good moral character ruling | Jimenez-Galieia contends the good moral character determination is reviewable | Respondent argues the catchall good moral character decision is discretionary and not reviewable | Court lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary moral character finding |
| Effect of 1252(a)(2)(ii) on review of eligibility determinations | Eligibility determinations under the catchall are reviewable | Congress designated discretionary review only for ultimate relief, not eligibility | Review limited to ultimate relief; catchall eligibility not precluded where not expressly discretionary |
| Whether the catchall provision makes good moral character discretionary | Catchall lack of good moral character may be non-discretionary | Catchall decision is discretionary under § 1101(f) | Catchall decision regarding good moral character is discretionary under the statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Vuksanovic v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 439 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2006) (jurisdictional limits on reviewing discretionary decisions under § 1252(a)(2)(B))
- Alvarez Acosta v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 524 F.3d 1191 (11th Cir. 2008) (abuse of discretion arguments are not reviewable)
- Argueta v. Holder, 617 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2010) (manner in which IJ balanced the equities is not reviewable)
- Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (2010) (clarifies that review is precluded only where Congress specifies discretionary authority)
- Jay v. Boyd, 351 U.S. 345 (1956) (eligibility standards vs. ultimate discretion in immigration relief)
- Rodriguez v. Gonzales, 451 F.3d 60 (2d Cir. 2006) (two-step process: eligibility then discretion to grant)
- Gonzalez-Oropeza v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 321 F.3d 1331 (11th Cir. 2003) (hardship-based eligibility debate in cancellation context)
- Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2001) (hardship-based discretionary conclusions in pre-REAL ID context)
- INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987) (statutory eligibility right vs. discretionary relief)
- St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (2001) (two-step framework for eligibility and relief)