Javier Hernandez-Morales v. Attorney General United States, 977 F.3d 247

Background

Javier Hernandez-Morales, a Mexican national, entered the U.S. unlawfully in 1995 and is the shared custodian of two U.S.-citizen daughters who live with him during the week so they can attend school in a good district.
He worked long-term as a restaurant chef/supervisor but has convictions for simple assault (against his wife) and driving under the influence.
The Government instituted removal proceedings; Hernandez-Morales conceded removability and applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D) (requiring "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" to qualifying relatives).
The immigration judge (IJ) denied cancellation as failing the hardship standard and, alternatively, declined relief based on criminal history. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed the appeal on the hardship ground and did not address the criminal-record rationale.
Hernandez-Morales sought review, asserting due-process violations: (1) the IJ relied on conjecture about the wife taking over the lease and maintaining the children’s school placement, and (2) the IJ created a conflicted record regarding his moral character. He also argued the hardship weighing raised a mixed question of law and fact.
The Third Circuit held it lacked jurisdiction to review discretionary or factual denials of § 1229b relief and that Hernandez-Morales’s claims were factual/discretionary, not constitutional or legal errors; the petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether IJ’s factual finding that wife could assume lease/keep children in same school violated due process	Hernandez-Morales: IJ used conjecture and violated due process by making unsupported factual findings	Government: This is a factual finding subject to BIA/IJ discretion and not a constitutional question	Held: Purely factual; not a due-process claim; court lacks jurisdiction to review
Whether IJ’s treatment of moral character created a due-process defect	Hernandez-Morales: IJ’s statement of "no dispute" about good moral character conflicted with denial based on convictions, creating a conflicted record for the BIA	Government: This is an exercise of discretion and record-assessment, not a constitutional error	Held: Discretionary/record-management issue, not constitutional; unreviewable here
Whether the hardship weighing is a mixed question of law and fact reviewable under Guerrero-Lasprilla	Hernandez-Morales: Guerrero-Lasprilla permits appellate review of mixed questions when based on undisputed facts; he asks for de novo review of hardship application	Government: The factual issues are disputed and the weighing of hardship factors is quintessentially discretionary	Held: Facts are disputed and weighing is discretionary; Guerrero-Lasprilla does not authorize review here
Whether any legal error (improper legal factor) warrants remand/review	Hernandez-Morales: Seeks reweighing of factors; suggests legal error in application	Government: No improper legal standard applied—only discretionary balancing of proper factors	Held: No allegation of an impermissible legal factor; court cannot reweigh; dismissal for lack of jurisdiction

Key Cases Cited

Neema Patel v. Attorney General, 599 F.3d 295 (3d Cir. 2010) (standards on reviewing BIA-adopted IJ decisions)
Dutton-Myrie v. Attorney General, 855 F.3d 509 (3d Cir. 2017) (factual findings and discretionary denials of § 1229b relief are unreviewable)
Mendez-Moranchel v. Ashcroft, 338 F.3d 176 (3d Cir. 2003) (hardship determination under § 1229b is discretionary and not reviewable)
Seemabahen Patel v. Attorney General, 619 F.3d 230 (3d Cir. 2010) (confirmation that hardship inquiries are discretionary)
Cospito v. Attorney General, 539 F.3d 166 (3d Cir. 2008) (factual findings do not become constitutional claims by label)
Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1062 (2020) (clarifies when mixed questions based on undisputed facts may be reviewed)