Michael Quezada v. Attorney General United States, 17-2039

Michael Quezada, a Dominican Republic native and lawful permanent resident since 2000, faced removal after criminal convictions (2011 conspiracy theft; 2015 attempted fraudulent use of a credit card with a five-year sentence).
DHS served a Notice to Appear charging removability under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) and (iii); the IJ sustained removability under (ii) but not (iii).
Quezada applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a), which is discretionary and requires absence of an aggravated felony and certain residency/continuous-presence thresholds.
At a merits hearing the IJ denied cancellation after weighing favorable and adverse factors, concluding adverse factors outweighed equities.
Quezada appealed to the BIA; after retaining counsel he sought two extensions to file a brief. The BIA granted one extension, denied a second extension request based on counsel’s illness, and affirmed the IJ without opinion.

Issue	Quezada's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the IJ abused discretion in denying cancellation of removal under § 1229b(a)	Quezada argued the IJ erred in weighing equities and should have granted cancellation	Denial of § 1229b(a) relief is a discretionary decision not subject to review	Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction: denial of discretionary relief is unreviewable under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)
Whether the BIA’s denial of counsel’s extension request violated due process	Quezada argued the BIA’s refusal to extend the briefing deadline (due to counsel’s illness) deprived him of a full and fair hearing	Any constitutional or legal claim is insubstantial because Quezada showed no substantial prejudice or what additional arguments would have changed the result	Court held the due process claim is wholly insubstantial/frivolous and thus not a colorable question of law under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); no jurisdiction

Pareja v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 615 F.3d 180 (3d Cir. 2010) (court lacks jurisdiction to review denial of discretionary relief including cancellation of removal)
Jarbough v. Att’y Gen. of U.S., 483 F.3d 184 (3d Cir. 2007) (to prevail on a due process claim in removal proceedings, an alien must show substantial prejudice)