Luis Alfonso Duarte-Rodriguez v. U.S. Attorney General, 20-12948

Duarte‑Rodriguez, a Colombian national, entered the U.S. without admission in 1993 and was charged as removable.
He applied for cancellation of removal/adjustment, claiming his removal would cause "exceptional and extremely unusual" hardship to his U.S.‑citizen daughter; the IJ denied relief and the BIA affirmed.
Nearly four years later he moved to reopen, submitting a mental‑health evaluation diagnosing his daughter; the BIA denied the motion as untimely and declined sua sponte reopening.
Duarte‑Rodriguez sought review in this Court, which previously dismissed a petition for lack of jurisdiction; he then moved the BIA to reconsider, which the BIA denied.
He appealed the BIA’s denial of sua sponte reconsideration, alleging abuse of discretion and a due‑process violation; the Attorney General moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
The Eleventh Circuit dismissed the petition, holding it lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s denial of sua sponte reopening/reconsideration because the asserted due‑process claim was not a colorable constitutional violation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court has jurisdiction to review BIA's denial of sua sponte reconsideration	Duarte‑Rodriguez argued the BIA abused discretion and misunderstood evidence, so review should be allowed	AG argued courts lack jurisdiction to review denials of sua sponte reopening/reconsideration	No jurisdiction: denials of sua sponte reopening/reconsideration are unreviewable by this Court
Whether Duarte‑Rodriguez’s due‑process claim is a colorable constitutional claim that would permit review	He contended BIA violated his due‑process right to a full and fair hearing	AG contended the claim is not colorable because relief sought is purely discretionary	Claim not colorable; discretionary relief carries no protected due‑process interest, so jurisdiction is lacking

Bing Quan Lin v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 881 F.3d 860 (11th Cir. 2018) (de novo review of subject‑matter jurisdiction)
Amaya‑Artunduaga v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2006) (jurisdictional review principles)
Butka v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 827 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2016) (no jurisdiction to review BIA denial of sua sponte reopening; possible exception for colorable constitutional claims)
Lenis v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 525 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2008) (same jurisdictional limitation on sua sponte reopening review)
Arias v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 482 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2007) (standard for a "colorable" constitutional claim permitting review)
Scheerer v. U.S. Att'y Gen., 513 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2008) (BIA has broad discretion; no constitutional interest in discretionary relief)