821 F.3d 1175
9th Cir.2016Background
- Petitioner Fermin Leonardo Monroy, a Salvadoran national admitted in 1989, overstayed his visa and has lived continuously in the U.S. since then.
- Government charged Monroy removable; he applied for NACARA special rule cancellation of removal and for voluntary departure; IJ granted voluntary departure but denied NACARA relief.
- IJ found Monroy not statutorily eligible (insufficient proof of extreme hardship) and, independently, denied cancellation as a matter of discretion based on Monroy’s criminal history and insufficient rehabilitation evidence.
- The BIA affirmed the IJ’s discretionary denial, concluding negative factors outweighed positive equities and declined to decide statutory eligibility.
- Monroy petitioned pro se for review, arguing the agency abused its discretion in weighing equities; the Government moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Monroy's Argument | Lynch's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court can review the BIA’s discretionary denial of NACARA special rule cancellation | BIA/IJ abused discretion; positive equities outweigh negatives | §1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars review of discretionary denials of cancellation | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — court cannot review discretionary denial |
| Whether statutory eligibility (extreme hardship) was decided and reviewable | Monroy contends he showed extreme hardship and is statutorily eligible | BIA did not rest denial on statutory ineligibility; it denied on discretion | Court need not resolve eligibility because jurisdictional bar applies to discretionary denial |
| Whether any colorable constitutional or legal questions were raised to preserve review | Monroy raised no constitutional or legal claims — only dispute over balancing equities | Government: no colorable constitutional/legal claim presented | Jurisdiction retained only for constitutional/legal questions, none asserted; thus no review |
Key Cases Cited
- Barrios v. Holder, 581 F.3d 849 (9th Cir. 2009) (describing NACARA special-rule cancellation implementation)
- Vilchez v. Holder, 682 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2012) (§1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars review of discretionary cancellation decisions)
- Bermudez v. Holder, 586 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (petition lacked colorable constitutional claim; jurisdictional bar applied)
- Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926 (9th Cir. 2005) (courts cannot review agency’s discretionary weighing of equities)