Lima v. Lynch, 826 F.3d 606

Lima, a Salvadoran, entered the U.S. in 1989 and has a lengthy criminal history including a 2003 conviction for assault and battery with a dangerous weapon (later vacated by a Massachusetts court in 2011).
In 2005 Lima applied for NACARA special-rule cancellation of removal; USCIS denied the application based on his criminal record.
Removal proceedings began in 2007; the IJ found Lima eligible for NACARA relief but denied it in the exercise of discretion, citing lack of credibility and probative police reports from the 2003 incident.
The BIA affirmed the IJ, reviewing factual findings for clear error and agreeing the IJ’s credibility determination was supported by record inconsistencies.
Lima challenged the denial, arguing the IJ gave improper weight to hearsay police reports and should have credited his testimony and an affidavit from the victim; he conceded Ramírez‑Matías was on point and asked the court to reconsider it.
The First Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because Lima raised no colorable legal or constitutional claim—only a factbound dispute about the agency’s weighing of evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court may review the BIA/IJ discretionary denial of NACARA special-rule cancellation of removal	Lima: IJ improperly relied on hearsay police reports and misweighed evidence; agency should have credited his testimony and the victim's affidavit	Government: Discretionary determinations under NACARA are unreviewable except for legal or constitutional claims; IJ permissibly relied on admissible arrest reports and credibility findings	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — petitioner raised only factbound challenge to agency’s weighing of evidence, not a legal or constitutional question
Whether reliance on police/arrest reports to discredit applicant raises a legal error	Lima: weight given to hearsay police reports was improper and violated evidentiary fairness	Government: Arrest reports are admissible and probative in immigration proceedings; credibility findings are factual and reviewable only for clear error	Court held that reliance on police reports and resulting credibility determination are factual matters; no jurisdiction to reweigh evidence

Ramírez‑Matías v. Holder, 778 F.3d 322 (1st Cir. 2015) (discretionary NACARA cancellations present factbound challenges not reviewable absent legal/constitutional claims)
Ouk v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 108 (1st Cir. 2006) (review applies to both IJ and BIA opinions when BIA adopts IJ reasoning)
Henry v. INS, 74 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1996) (arrest reports historically admissible and probative in immigration hearings)
González‑Ruano v. Holder, 662 F.3d 59 (1st Cir. 2011) (jurisdictional limits on reviewing discretionary cancellation decisions under NACARA)
Santana‑Medina v. Holder, 616 F.3d 49 (1st Cir. 2010) (agency weighing of evidence in discretionary relief is not a legal question)
Elysee v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 221 (1st Cir. 2006) (challenges to agency credibility determinations are factual)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) (ineffective assistance of counsel claim invoked in state-court motion to vacate plea)
Mejía v. Holder, 756 F.3d 64 (1st Cir. 2014) (certain assault convictions constitute crimes of moral turpitude rendering applicant ineligible for NACARA special‑rule cancellation)
Thomas v. INS, 976 F.2d 786 (1st Cir. 1992) (criminal convictions and their immigration consequences)
United States v. DePierre, 599 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2010) (panel cannot overrule prior panel precedent absent supervening authority)