John Tsibo Fynn v. U.S. Attorney General, 752 F.3d 1250

Petitioner John T. Fynn, a Ghanaian, sought a waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4)(B) to remove conditions on his permanent residence after his qualifying marriage ended.
The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied the waiver based on an adverse credibility finding about Fynn and his ex-wife’s testimony; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed.
Fynn argued the totality of the evidence showed the marriage was entered in good faith and that the IJ improperly weighed evidence and failed to inquire, violating due process.
The government contended the court lacks jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary credibility and weight-of-evidence determinations.
The Eleventh Circuit agreed it lacked jurisdiction to review the credibility/weight determinations and dismissed Fynn’s petition; it also held Fynn failed to exhaust any separate due process claim before the BIA.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court has jurisdiction to review whether the marriage was entered in good faith and the agency’s adverse credibility/weight determinations	Fynn: agency erred; totality of facts supports good-faith marriage and IJ should have given more weight to testimony and ex-wife’s medical condition	Government: statutory bar prevents review of discretionary credibility and weight decisions under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii); claims are discretionary	Held: Court lacks jurisdiction to review the agency’s credibility and weight determinations; petition dismissed on this ground
Whether IJ/BIA violated due process by failing to properly weigh evidence / inquire	Fynn: agency’s failure to probe or properly weigh evidence denied him due process	Government: claim restates the discretionary-weight challenge and, in any event, Fynn failed to exhaust administrative remedies before the BIA	Held: Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the due process claim because it either recharacterizes the discretionary challenge or was not exhausted administratively; claim dismissed

Gonzalez-Oropeza v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 321 F.3d 1331 (11th Cir.) (standard for reviewing jurisdictional questions)
Zafar v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 461 F.3d 1357 (11th Cir.) (interpretation of § 1252 jurisdictional limits)
Alvarez Acosta v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 524 F.3d 1191 (11th Cir.) (abuse-of-discretion/weight-of-evidence is not a legal claim)
Boadi v. Holder, 706 F.3d 854 (7th Cir.) (no jurisdiction to review credibility/weight under § 1186a(c)(4))
Johns v. Holder, 678 F.3d 404 (6th Cir.) (same)
Iliev v. Holder, 613 F.3d 1019 (10th Cir.) (same)
Contreras-Salinas v. Holder, 585 F.3d 710 (2d Cir.) (same)
Cho v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 96 (1st Cir.) (discussion of discretion and reviewability)
Oropeza-Wong v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir.) (finding reviewability of good-faith marriage determinations)
Assaad v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 471 (5th Cir.) (no jurisdiction to review good-faith determination)
Ibrahimi v. Holder, 566 F.3d 758 (8th Cir.) (discussion of legal predicate vs. discretionary factfinding)
Amaya-Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir.) (exhaustion requirement for judicial review of removal orders)