Manuel Abdale Pizarro v. Attorney General United States, 697 F. App'x 135

Pizarro entered the U.S. in 1987, later married and has six U.S. citizen children.
He pled guilty to wire fraud (overstating incomes on two mortgage applications), was sentenced to 366 days and ordered to pay $370,000.
After indictment he fled to Ecuador, reentered without authorization in 2013, and was later convicted for failure to appear and embezzlement related to $13,000.
DHS initiated removal proceedings in 2015 as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony; Pizarro sought adjustment of status but needed an INA § 212(h) waiver of inadmissibility.
The IJ found Pizarro was statutorily ineligible for a § 212(h) waiver (lawful permanent admission before commission of an aggravated felony) and would deny a waiver in the exercise of discretion; the BIA affirmed the discretionary-denial ground and denied reconsideration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court has jurisdiction to review the BIA/IJ discretionary denial of a § 212(h) waiver	Pizarro contends the BIA/IJ misweighed the hardship and should have granted the waiver	Government argues § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars review of discretionary determinations about waivers	Court lacks jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial and dismisses that part of the petition
Whether Pizarro is statutorily ineligible for a § 212(h) waiver because he was lawfully admitted for permanent residence before committing an aggravated felony	Pizarro argues his initial entry on a tourist visa means he was not lawfully admitted as a permanent resident before the felony, so the statute's bar does not apply	Government (and IJ) treat him as having been lawfully admitted for permanent residence before the aggravated felony, making him statutorily ineligible	Court did not reach or resolve this eligibility question because it affirmed on independent discretionary ground; petition denied as to other issues
Whether the IJ applied the correct legal standard for "extreme hardship" (vs. a higher "exceptional and extremely unusual" standard)	Pizarro contends the IJ required a higher "exceptional and extremely unusual" hardship showing	Government asserts the IJ applied the correct "extreme hardship" standard	Record shows IJ applied the correct "extreme hardship" standard; Pizarro's claim on this point fails

Cospito v. Att'y Gen. of U.S., 539 F.3d 166 (3d Cir. 2008) (jurisdictional bar on reviewing discretionary determinations denying waivers under § 212(h))