United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 22-2166 ___________________________ Aisha Rashidatu King Petitioner v. Merrick B. Garland, United States Attorney General Respondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: January 10, 2023 Filed: June 14, 2023 ____________ Before GRASZ, MELLOY, and KOBES, Circuit Judges. ____________ KOBES, Circuit Judge. Aisha King petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’s denial of her waiver of inadmissibility. We deny in part and dismiss in part. I. King, a citizen of Sierra Leone, became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in 2010. From 2007 to 2011, King and her husband ran a health care facility where they engaged in a scheme to defraud Medicaid. King was convicted of conspiracy to commit health care fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1349, health care fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1347 and 2, and aggravated identity theft, 18 U.S.C. § 1028A. In 2019, the Department of Homeland Security charged King with removability for two counts of being an aggravated felon, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), and for having been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude within five years of being admitted to the United States, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(i). King conceded her removability, making her inadmissible to the United States and subject to deportation. Seeking relief from removal, King applied for a waiver of inadmissibility. To qualify for the waiver, King needed to demonstrate statutory eligibility and that the equities warranted a favorable exercise of discretion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h)(1)(B); Palmer v. INS, 4 F.3d 482, 487 (7th Cir. 1993). The Immigration Judge denied King’s application. In addition to finding King statutorily ineligible, the IJ denied King’s application as a matter of discretion. King appealed the IJ’s discretionary denial, and the BIA affirmed. After balancing the appropriate factors, the BIA held that King’s positive equities did not outweigh her negative equities. We consider the discretionary denial of King’s application on appeal. II. The Government argues that we lack jurisdiction to review King’s petition. In cases like this one, the criminal-alien bar and the discretionary-relief bar strip us of jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i) (criminal-alien bar); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)–(C) (discretionary-relief bar). But both provisions have an exception for questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); see also Kassim v. -2- Barr, 954 F.3d 1138, 1140 (8th Cir. 2020). To evaluate whether King’s petition raises a reviewable question of law, we look to the “nature of the argument advanced in the petition.” Sharif v. Barr, 965 F.3d 612, 619 (8th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). A. First, King argues that the BIA failed to consider hardship to her relatives as one of her positive equities. King’s challenge is a reviewable question of law, but it is without merit. See Champion v. Holder, 626 F.3d 952, 956–57 (7th Cir. 2010) (noting that the BIA’s failure to “consider factors acknowledged to be material . . . would be an error of law” (citation omitted)). Although the …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals