Jesette Rhodes v. Jefferson Sessions III
682 F. App'x 254
4th Cir.2017Background
- Petitioner Jesette Jacklyn Ramao Rhodes, a Filipino national, sought a "good faith" marriage waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4) after immigration proceedings.
- An Immigration Judge denied Rhodes’s waiver application; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissed her appeal.
- Rhodes filed two consolidated petitions for review in this Court: one challenging the BIA’s denial of the § 1186a(c)(4) waiver (No. 15-1657) and one challenging the BIA’s denial of her motion to reopen (No. 15-2319).
- The government defended the BIA’s discretionary credibility and evidentiary determinations and its denial of the motion to reopen.
- The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of the waiver and whether the BIA abused its discretion in denying the motion to reopen.
Issues
| Issue | Rhodes's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court may review denial of a § 1186a(c)(4) good-faith marriage waiver | Rhodes contended the denial was reviewable (no constitutional or legal question presented in opinion) | Denial is committed to DHS discretion by statute; not judicially reviewable | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) |
| Whether Rhodes raised a colorable constitutional claim or question of law enabling review | Rhodes did not present such a claim or question on appeal | Government argued no constitutional or legal challenge exists to trigger review exception | Court found no constitutional or colorable legal question, so exception under § 1252(a)(2)(D) did not apply |
| Whether the BIA abused its discretion in denying Rhodes’s motion to reopen | Rhodes argued the BIA should reopen proceedings (arguments summarized in administrative record) | Government maintained denial was within BIA’s discretion and supported by the record | Petition denied; court concluded BIA did not abuse its discretion |
| Whether oral argument was necessary | Rhodes presumably sought full appellate consideration | Government opposed necessity | Court dispensed with oral argument as unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Contreras-Salinas v. Holder, 585 F.3d 710 (2d Cir. 2009) (statute commits credibility and weight-of-evidence determinations in § 1186a(c)(4) to DHS discretion)
- Caraballo-Tavera v. Holder, 683 F.3d 49 (2d Cir. 2012) (standards for reviewing BIA denial of motions to reopen)
- Markovski v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 108 (4th Cir. 2007) (deference to BIA’s discretionary denial of motions to reopen)