green
Positive treatment
54.2 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2009–2025 · 2 courts ·
…a petitioner may not create the jurisdiction that congress chose to remove simply by cloaking an abuse of discretion argument in constitutional garb.
at p. 843
✓
cited 2× by 1 distinct case ·
…cloak an abuse of discretion argument in constitutional or legal garb
at p. 843
≈ altered
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2009 ·
…exceptional and extremely unusual hardship
at p. 843
≈ altered
Treatment trajectory · 2006 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2006
2016
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 36 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
LeGrand v. Carpenter
As stated in Meraz-Reyes v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 842, 843 (8th Cir. 2006), “[a] petitioner may not create the jurisdiction that Congress chose to remove simply by cloaking an abuse of discretion argument in constitutional garb.” (cleaned up).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Avtar Singh v. Jeffrey Rosen
Many other courts likewise have noted “that such hardship determinations are discretionary judgments and therefore . . . may not be reviewed.” De La Vega v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 141, 144 (2d Cir. 2006); see Hernandez-Morales v. Att’y Gen., 977 F.3d 247 , 249 (3d Cir. 2020); Rueda v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 831, 831 (5th Cir. 2004) (per curiam); Meraz-Reyes v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 842, 843 (8th Cir. 2006) (per curiam); Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975 , 978–79 (9th Cir. 2009); Galeano-Romero, 968 F.3d at 1183–84; Martinez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1219, 1222 (11th Cir. 2006).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Adalberto Hernandez-Garcia v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.
But we have consistently ruled that we lack jurisdiction to review a discretionary BIA decision that petitioner’s removal would not “result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship,” even when the petitioner seeking review attempted to “create jurisdiction by cloaking an abuse of discretion argument in constitutional or legal garb.” Garcia-Torres v. Holder, 660 F.3d 333, 338 (8th Cir.2011) (quotation omitted), cert. denied, — U.S.—, 133 S.Ct. 108 , 184 L.Ed.2d 23 (2012); accord Hamilton v. Holder, 680 F.3d 1024, 1027 (8th Cir.2012); Solis v. Holder, 647 F.3d 831, 833 (8th Ci…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Marco Nunez-Portillo v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.
By questioning whether the BIA accurately assessed or, ultimately, gave due weight to these factors, Nunez-Portil-lo “attacks the BIA determination that the evidence failed to show an ‘extraordinary and extremely unusual hardship.’ This finding, however, is precisely the discretionary determination that Congress shielded from our review.” Meraz-Reyes v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 842, 843 (8th Cir.2006) (per curiam); see also Gomez-Perez v. Holder, 569 F.3d 370, 373 (8th Cir.2009) (finding no jurisdiction to review how the IJ and BIA weighed the relevant factors).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Domingo Alencastro v. Eric Holder, Jr.
Gen., 446 F.3d 1219, 1221-22 (11th Cir.2006); Meraz-Reyes v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 842, 843 (8th Cir.2006) (per curiam); see also Obioha v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 400, 405 (4th Cir.2005) (“It is quite clear that the gatekeeper provision [of § 1252(a)(2)(B)® ] bars our jurisdiction to review a decision of the [Board] to actually *322 deny a petition for cancellation of removal.”)- Indeed, this court has concluded that the issue of hardship is committed to agency discretion and thus is not subject to appellate review.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dario Delgado v. Eric Holder, Jr.
Here, the immigration judge found, and the Board explicitly agreed, that Delgado failed to meet his burden of establishing that his United States citizen children would suffer an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if he is removed to Mexico. “[A]n ‘exceptional and extremely unusual hardship’ determination is a subjective, discretionary judgment that has been carved out of our appellate jurisdiction.” Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 888 (9th Cir.2003); see also, e.g., Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 36 (2d Cir.2008); Memije v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 1163, 1164 (9th…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pe Paul Goromou v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.
(2×)
Meraz-Reyes v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 842, 843 (8th Cir.2006).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Daniel Soto-Roque v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.
The argument that the IJ and BIA applied an incorrect legal standard by failing to consider adequately certain factors that have been considered in other BIA decisions is a challenge to the discretionary conclusion of not meriting a favorable exercise of discretion and “is precisely the discretionary determination that Congress shielded from our review.” Gomez-Perez, 569 F.3d at 373 (quoting Meraz-Reyes v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 842, 843 (8th Cir.2006) (per curiam)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hugo Santos v. Eric Holder, Jr.
See, e.g., Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 36 (2d Cir.2008); Memije v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 1163, 1164 (9th Cir.2007); Martinez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1219, 1221-22 (11th Cir.2006); Meraz-Reyes v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 842, 843 (8th Cir.2006); see also Obioha v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 400, 405 (4th Cir.2005) (“It is quite clear that the gatekeeper provision [of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) ] bars our jurisdiction to review a decision of the [Board] to actually deny a petition for cancellation of removal.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Victor Castillo-Castillo v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Castillo-Castillo sets forth information regarding his relationship with his children, the support he provides for them, and how his removal will result in his inability to see some of his children for an extended duration, or even “permanently.” Castillo-Castillo asserts that there is a “bell curve” upon which there is a “tipping point ... where the facts of the case place it into the category of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.” This challenge to the BIA’s “determination that the evidence failed to show an ‘extraordinary and extremely unusual hardship’” targe…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nicolas Morales v. Eric Holder, Jr.
See, e.g., Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 36 (2d Cir.2008); Memije v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 1163, 1164 (9th Cir.2007); Martinez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1219, 1221-22 (11th Cir.2006); Meraz-Reyes v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 842, 843 (8th Cir.2006); see also Obioha v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 400, 405 (4th Cir.2005) (“It is quite clear that the gatekeeper provision [of § 1252(a)(2)(B)© ] bars our jurisdiction to review a decision of the [Board] to actually deny a petition for cancellation of removal.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Solis v. Holder
Such a finding that the evidence “failed to prove that his removal would cause an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship .... ‘is precisely the discretionary determination that Congress shielded from [this court’s] review.’ ” Zacarias-Velasquez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 429, 434 (8th Cir.2007), quoting Meraz-Reyes v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 842, 843 (8th Cir.2006) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gonzalez Flores v. Holder
See, e.g., Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 36 (2d Cir.2008); Memije v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 1163, 1164 (9th Cir.2007); Martinez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1219, 1221-22 (11th Cir.2006); Meraz-Reyes v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 842, 843 (8th Cir.2006); see also Obioha v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 400, 405 (4th Cir.2005) (“It is quite clear that the gatekeeper provision [of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) ] bars our jurisdiction to review a decision of the BIA to actually deny a petition for cancellation of removal.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Molina Jerez v. Holder
(2×)
Manani v. Filip, 552 F.3d 894 , 900 n. 3 (8th Cir.2009). "[A] petitioner may not create the jurisdiction that Congress chose to remove simply by cloaking an abuse of discretion argument in constitutional garb." Meraz-Reyes v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 842, 843 (8th Cir.2006) (per curiam) (quoting Onyinkwa v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 797 , 799 n. 1 (8th Cir.2004)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pareja v. Attorney General of the United States
See, e.g., De Lourdes Castro De Mercado v. Mukasey, 566 F.3d 810, 815 (9th Cir.2009); Martinez v. Att’y Gen. of the United States, 446 F.3d 1219, 1221-22 (11th Cir.2006); Meraz-Reyes v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 842, 843 (8th Cir.2006); De La Vega v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 141, 145-46 (2d Cir.2006); Mireles v. Gonzales, 433 F.3d 965, 968-69 (7th Cir.2006); Rueda v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 831, 831 (5th Cir.2004) (per curiam). 6 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Agyare v. Holder
Zacarias-Velasquez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 429, 434 (8th Cir.2007); Meraz-Reyes v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 842, 843 (8th Cir.2006).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ochoa v. Holder
(2×)
"We lack jurisdiction to review [a denial of a cancellation of removal for a failure to prove an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to an American-citizen child] because it `is precisely the discretionary determination that Congress shielded from our review.'" Zacarias-Velasquez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 429, 434 (8th Cir.2007) (quoting Meraz-Reyes v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 842, 843 (8th Cir.2006) (per curiam)); see 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(B)(i) ("Notwithstanding any other provision of law ... no court shall have jurisdiction to review any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Chibwe v. Holder
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
See, e.g., Manani v. Filip, 552 F.3d 894 , 900 n. 3 (8th Cir.2009); Meraz-Reyes v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 842, 843 (8th Cir.2006) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Mwape Chibwe, etc. v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
See, e.g., Manani v. Filip, 552 F.3d 894 , 900 n.3 (8th Cir. 2009); Meraz-Reyes v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 842, 843 (8th Cir. 2006) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gomez-Perez v. Holder
And such a “determination that the evidence failed to show an ‘extraordinary and extremely unusual hardship’ ... is precisely the discretionary determination that Congress shielded from our review.” Meraz-Reyes v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 842, 843 (8th Cir.2006) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Moises Gomez-Perez v. Eric H. Holder, Jr.
And such a "determination that the evidence failed to show an 'extraordinary and extremely unusual hardship' . . . is precisely the discretionary determination that Congress shielded from our review." Meraz-Reyes v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 842, 843 (8th Cir. 2006) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Filiberto Degante v. Michael Mukasey
See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b) (cancellation-of-removal eligibility requirements for nonpermanent residents); 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(B)© (no court shall have jurisdiction to review any judgment regarding denial of relief under, inter alia, § 1229b); Zacarias-Velasquez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 429, 434 (8th Cir.2007) (whether alien meets exceptional- and-extremely-unusual-hardship threshold “ ‘is precisely the discretionary determination that Congress shielded from our review* ” under § 1252(a)(2)(B) (quoting Meraz-Reyes v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 842, 843 (8th Cir.2006) (per curiam))).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Vargas v. Holder
Meraz-Reyes v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 842, 842-43 (8th Cir.2006) (per curiam).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Concepcion Acosta-Nunez v. Michael B. Mukasey
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
As such, “disputefs] with the BIA’s factual findings or discretionary judgments ... are insulated from judicial review.” Purwantono v. Gonzales, 498 F.3d 822, 824 (8th Cir.2007); Meraz-Reyes v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 842, 843 (8th Cir.2006) (per cu-riam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Edgar Herrera v. Michael Mukasey
Since a petitioner may not “ ‘create the jurisdiction that Congress chose to remove simply by cloaking an abuse of discretion argument in constitutional garb,’ ” Meraz-Reyes v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 842, 843 (8th Cir.2006) (per curiam), quoting Onyinkwa v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 797 , 799 n. 1 (8th Cir.2004), these claims are beyond the scope of our jurisdiction.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Norabely Rubio-Perez v. Alberto Gonzales
See Zacarias-Velasquez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 429, 434 (8th Cir.2007) (appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review cancellation-of-removal decision because it is type of discretionary determination that Congress shielded from appellate review); Meraz-Reyes v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 842, 843 (8th Cir.2006) (per curiam) (“a petitioner may not create the jurisdiction that Congress chose to remove simply by cloaking an abuse of discretion argument in constitutional garb”) (quoting Toms-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gabriel Treto-Diaz v. Alberto Gonzales
Although petitioners purport to raise a due process challenge to the BIA’s order, see Munoz-Yepez v. Gonzales, 465 F.3d 347, 351 (8th Cir.2006) (appeals court has jurisdiction to review constitutional claims raised in petition for review), we conclude *491 their challenge merely attacks the substance of the BIA’s decision, see Meraz-Reyes v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 842, 843 (8th Cir.2006) (per curiam) (although appellate review includes constitutional challenges, “a petitioner may not create the jurisdiction that Congress chose to remove simply by cloaking an abuse of discretion argument in c…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kodjo v. Mukasey
Zacarias-Velasquez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 429, 434 (8th Cir.2007); Meraz-Reyes v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 842, 843 (8th Cir.2006).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Zacarias-Velasquez v. Peter D. Keisler
We lack jurisdiction to review this finding because it “is precisely the discretionary determination that Congress shielded from our review.” Meraz-Reyes v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 842, 843 (8th Cir. 2006) (per curiam); see 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(B)(i) (“Notwithstanding any other provision of law . . . no court shall have jurisdiction to review any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section . . . 1229b . . . .”); Solano-Chicas v. Gonzales, 440 F.3d 1050, 1054-55 (8th Cir. 2006) (“[W]e may not generally review the BIA’s decision to deny an alien cancellation of removal.”)…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Zacarias-Velasquez v. Mukasey
We lack jurisdiction to review this finding because it “is precisely the discretionary determination that Congress shielded from our review.” Meraz-Reyes v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 842, 843 (8th Cir.2006) (per curiam); see 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(B)(i) (“Notwithstanding any other provision of law ... no court shall have jurisdiction to review any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section ... 1229b....”); Solano-Chicas v. Gonzales, 440 F.3d 1050, 1054-55 (8th Cir.2006) (“[W]e may not generally review the BIA’s decision to deny an alien cancellation of removal.”); Bropleh …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Genet Hailemichael v. Alberto Gonzales
The IJ and the Board erred in failing to properly weigh these factors.” This Court lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary denials of adjustment of status, unless the petition for review raises a constitutional claim or question of law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(B)(i),(ii) and (a)(2)(D) (2006); see also Suvorov v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 618, 621-22 (8th Cir. 2006); Meraz-Rayes v. Gonzalez, 436 F.3d 842, 842 (8th Cir. 2006) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Genet Hailemichael v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States of America
The IJ and the Board erred in failing to properly weigh these factors.” This Court lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary denials of adjustment of status, unless the petition for review raises a constitutional claim or question of law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(B)(i),(ii) and (a)(2)(D) (2006); see also Suvorov v. Gonzales, 441 F.3d 618, 621-22 (8th Cir.2006); Meraz-Reyes v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 842, 842 (8th Cir.2006) (per curiam).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hermez v. Gonzales
See Meraz-Reyes v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 842, 843 (8th Cir.2006); De La Vega v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 141, 146 (2d Cir.2006); Mireles v. Gonzales, 433 F.3d 965, 968-69 (7th Cir.2006); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir.2005).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Eugenio Alonso-Juarez v. Pamela Bondi
Before Wilkinson v. Garland, we left it to the immigration judge and the Board. 601 U.S. 209 (2024); see, e.g., Meraz-Reyes v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 842, 843 (8th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (holding that it was “precisely the discretionary determination that Congress shielded from our review”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Josephine Kemunto Manani v. Michael B. Mukasey
(2×)
See, e.g., Meraz-Reyes v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 842, 843 (8th Cir. 2006) (per curiam) (“[A] petitioner may not create the jurisdiction that Congress chose to remove simply by cloaking an abuse of discretion argument in constitutional garb.” (alteration in original) (quoting Onyinkwa v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 797 , 799 n.1 (8th Cir. 2004))).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Manani v. Filip
See, e.g., Meraz-Reyes v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 842, 843 (8th Cir.2006) (per curiam) ("[A] petitioner may not create the jurisdiction that Congress chose to remove simply by cloaking an abuse of discretion argument in constitutional garb.” (alteration in original) (quoting Onyinkwa v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 797 , 799 n. 1 (8th Cir.2004))).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jesus MERAZ-REYES, Petitioner,
v.
Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States of America, Respondent
v.
Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General of the United States of America, Respondent
05-1197.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Feb 1, 2006.
Varoujan Agemian, Glendale, California, for appellant., Keith Ian Bernstein, Dept, of Justice, Washington DC (Peter D. Keisler and Emily Anne Radford, Washington, DC, on the brief), for appellee.
Melloy, Colloton, Benton.
Cited by 40 opinions | Published
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner Jesus Meraz-Reyes, a citizen of Mexico unlawfully present in the United States, conceded removability and applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b, or in the alternative, voluntary departure. An immigration judge denied cancellation of removal but granted voluntary departure with an alternative order of removal to Mexico. In denying cancellation of removal, the immigration judge found that the petitioner failed to establish that his removal would result in an “extraordinary and extremely unusual hardship” to his eight-year-old, United States-citizen child. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D). The petitioner appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), and the BIA affirmed.
The petitioner now appeals to our court. He concedes that courts generally lack jurisdiction to review denials of petitions for cancellation of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)® (“Notwithstanding any other provision of law ... no court shall have jurisdiction to review ... any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section ... 1229b.”); Bropleh v. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 772, 778 (8th Cir.2005); Halabi v. Ashcroft, 316 F.3d 807, 808 (8th Cir.2003) (per curiam) (“The controlling statute expressly states that denials of discretionary relief, such as that under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b, are not subject to review[*843] by the courts.”). He nevertheless argues that our court has jurisdiction over his case under an exception to the general rule that would permit courts to review substantial constitutional challenges to the Immigration and Nationality Act or administrative proceedings under the act. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (“Nothing in sub-paragraph (B) ... shall be construed as precluding review of constitutional claims or questions of law raised upon a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals in accordance with this section.”); Onyinkwa v. Ashcroft, 376 F.3d 797, 799 n. 1 (8th Cir.2004) (“Several circuits have suggested that courts retain jurisdiction to review discretionary decisions by immigration judges if a petitioner has demonstrated a substantial constitutional violation.”).
Despite arguing in favor of such an exception, the petitioner does not identify any reviewable claim. He does not argue that the BIA failed to recognize its discretionary authority or that the BIA relied upon an unconstitutional, discriminatory factor when exercising its discretion. Rather, the petitioner attacks the BIA determination that the evidence failed to show an “extraordinary and extremely unusual hardship.” This finding, however, is precisely the discretionary determination that Congress shielded from our review. “ ‘[A] petitioner may not create the jurisdiction that Congress chose to remove simply by cloaking an abuse of discretion argument in constitutional garb.’ ” Id. (quoting Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001)). Thus, we reject the petitioner’s argument and find jurisdiction lacking in this case.
We deny the petition.