Sorcia v. Holder, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 13403

Sorcia, a Mexican citizen, became a lawful permanent resident in 1990 and faced removal based on domestic violence convictions.
IJ found Sorcia removable after admitting three DV-related crimes; Sorcia sought cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a).
IJ weighed equities, highlighting Sorcia's 20-year U.S. residence, family ties, and employment against his criminal history and alleged lack of rehabilitation.
BIA affirmed denial, deeming criminal history outweighed favorable factors, and also denied Sorcia's motion to reopen/remand.
Sorcia challenged in this court, raising venue questions and challenging the discretionary denial, but the court ultimately dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
Procedural posture included a contested venue/transfer issue under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b) and potential transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1631.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court has jurisdiction to review discretionary denial of cancellation	Sorcia argues BIA erred in weighing factors and seeks review of legal standards.	Government contends § 1252(a)(2)(B) bars review of discretionary denial absent constitutional claims or questions of law.	Lack of jurisdiction; no constitutional or legal question presented
Whether the court has jurisdiction to review denial of motion to remand	Sorcia seeks review of the BIA's denial to remand for reconsideration.	Government contends the denial rests on merits of an enumerated relief and is reviewable only if jurisdiction exists.	Lack of jurisdiction
Whether § 1252(b)(2) is a jurisdictional provision or a nonjurisdictional venue rule	Sorcia may rely on venue rules to challenge where review is filed.	Government argues venue provisions do not affect jurisdiction for review.	§ 1252(b)(2) is nonjurisdictional venue
Whether the transfer under § 1631 is appropriate when venue is lacking	Sorcia would benefit from transfer to a circuit with proper venue.	Government urges transfer for convenience or dismissal.	Transfer not warranted given jurisdictional/merits considerations and lack of interest of justice

Avila v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 560 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2009) (nonjurisdictional nature of § 1252(b)(2) venue provision recognized)
Moreno-Bravo v. Gonzales, 463 F.3d 253 (2d Cir. 2006) (§ 1631 transfer and venue considerations among circuits)
Georcely v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2004) (venue provisions and jurisdictional interpretation)
Nwaokolo v. I.N.S., 314 F.3d 303 (7th Cir. 2002) (venue nonjurisdictional understanding)
Jama v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 230 (5th Cir. 2005) (nonjurisdictional treatment of venue issues)
Bonhometre v. Gonzales, 414 F.3d 442 (3d Cir. 2005) (discretionary review boundaries and venue considerations)
Ramos v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 948 (7th Cir. 2004) (completion venue concept in immigration proceedings)
Hussain v. Gonzales, 477 F.3d 153 (4th Cir. 2007) (relevance of discretionary factors in § 1252 review)
Higuit v. Gonzales, 433 F.3d 417 (4th Cir. 2006) (weighting of favorable vs. adverse equities not legal question)
Jean v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 475 (4th Cir. 2006) (no jurisdiction over discretionary denial where not legal question)
Argueta v. Holder, 617 F.3d 109 (2d Cir. 2010) (margins of discretionary balance claims and jurisdiction)
Najjar v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2001) (BIA precedent cited regarding eligibility demonstration)
INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 94 (1988) (regulatory support for petition standards in relief proceedings)