Moody v. Holder
523 F. App'x 88
2d Cir.2013Background
- Moody is a Jamaican citizen who was granted conditional permanent residence in 1987 based on a marriage to US citizen Moody.
- The conditional status was terminated in 1989 after Moody and Moody failed to file a joint petition to remove the conditions.
- In 2002 Moody filed a waiver application, which was denied in 2008 under 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4)(B).
- In petitioner's removal proceedings the IJ denied the renewed waiver request, and the BIA affirmed.
- The Second Circuit reviews the IJ/BIA decision; it generally lacks jurisdiction over discretionary agency decisions, except for constitutional claims or questions of law raised in a petition for review.
- The court held that Moody’s arguments challenged only factual determinations and evidentiary weight, not legal questions, so the petition for review was dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has jurisdiction to review the waiver decision. | Moody argues a legal/constitutional challenge, seeking review. | Holder maintains lack of jurisdiction over discretionary determinations. | Jurisdiction lacking; review dismissed. |
| Whether the agency correctly applied 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4)(B) on good-faith marriage. | Moody contends the marriage was in good faith. | Agency found credibility issues and inconsistencies undermining good-faith claim. | Court does not address merits; lack of jurisdiction over factual determinations. |
| Whether the agency properly weighed evidence and credibility. | Petitioner claims the agency overlooked or mischaracterized evidence. | Agency's credibility determinations are discretionary and within the agency. | Court defers to agency on credibility; no legal error identified. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boluk v. Holder, 642 F.3d 297 (2d Cir. 2011) (review limited to legal questions; factual findings reviewed for error if raised)
- Contreras-Salinas v. Holder, 585 F.3d 710 (2d Cir. 2009) (lack of jurisdiction over discretionary agency decisions)
- Mendez v. Holder, 566 F.3d 316 (2d Cir. 2009) (error of law where agency totally overlooked important factors)
- Atsilov v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 2006) (per curiam; de novo review for constitutional claims or questions of law)
- Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35 (2d Cir. 2008) (factual/weight-based challenge to agency discretion not reviewable on appeal)