Guzman-Munoz v. U.S. Attorney General, 733 F.3d 1311

Guzman-Munoz, a Peruvian national, was ordered removed after an IJ and the BIA found her marriage to Cuban national Leonardo Cruz was not bona fide and that both lacked credibility.
She moved to reopen her removal, asserting eligibility for VAWA special cancellation/adjustment as a battered spouse under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2).
Supporting evidence included joint bills/bank statements, a signed statement alleging verbal/physical/sexual abuse, and a therapist evaluation documenting abuse.
The BIA denied the motion to reopen, finding (1) she failed to show the marriage was bona fide, (2) her evidence was not previously unavailable, and (3) she failed to make a prima facie showing of being a battered spouse or extreme cruelty under § 1229b.
Guzman-Munoz petitioned for review in the Eleventh Circuit, which first considered whether it had jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary denial under § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Eleventh Circuit has jurisdiction to review BIA denial of motion to reopen asserting VAWA battered-spouse relief	Guzman-Munoz urged review of the BIA’s denial and contested the BIA’s findings (e.g., availability of evidence)	Government argued § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) strips courts of jurisdiction to review discretionary denials of relief under § 1229b	Court held it lacked jurisdiction under § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) because the BIA’s denial rested on a discretionary determination that she failed to establish a prima facie battered-spouse claim
Whether Guzman-Munoz raised a reviewable constitutional or legal question	Argued BIA erred in procedural findings (e.g., evidence availability) but did not assert a constitutional claim	Government maintained no constitutional or legal question was presented	Court held she raised no cognizable constitutional or statutory question under § 1252(a)(2)(D) and any error on availability was harmless in light of the discretionary prima facie ruling

Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405 (11th Cir. 1999) (standard on subject-matter jurisdiction analysis)
Sanchez Jimenez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 492 F.3d 1223 (11th Cir. 2007) (de novo review of jurisdiction)
Patel v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 334 F.3d 1259 (11th Cir. 2003) (jurisdiction to review final orders of removal extends to motions to reopen)
Bedoya-Melendez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 680 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2012) (BIA’s discretionary finding that petitioner was not a battered spouse is not reviewable)
Martinez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1219 (11th Cir. 2006) (lack of jurisdiction over BIA’s discretionary determinations under § 1229b)
Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (U.S. 2010) (interpretation of limits on judicial review of agency discretionary decisions)
Scheerer v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 513 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2008) (no constitutionally protected interest in discretionary relief decisions)