Eduardo A. Julien v. U.S. Attorney General

Case: 16-16635 Date Filed: 10/13/2017 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 16-16635 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ Agency No. A037-178-693 EDUARDO A. JULIEN, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (October 13, 2017) Before HULL, WILSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 16-16635 Date Filed: 10/13/2017 Page: 2 of 6 Eduardo Julien seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) final order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for a waiver of inadmissibility. Julien asserts the IJ misstated and misapplied the holding from the BIA’s decision in Matter of Buscemi, 19 I&N Dec. 628 (BIA 1988), and the IJ wrongly balanced the equities in his case. Julien also contends substantial evidence did not support the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. After review, we dismiss in part and deny in part. I. DISCUSSION A. Jurisdiction Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), we lack jurisdiction to review any final removal order against an alien who is removable by reason of having committed, among other things, an aggravated felony, as defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43), under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Moreover, we also lack jurisdiction to review decisions regarding removability that have been left to the discretion of the Attorney General. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). A decision to grant or deny a waiver of inadmissibility 1 is left to the discretion of the Attorney General. Arias v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 482 F.3d 1281, 1283 (11th Cir. 2007). 1 Under former 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c), lawful permanent residents who were removable due to certain criminal convictions were eligible for a discretionary waiver of inadmissibility. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c). Although this statute was effectively repealed in 1990, it remains available to aliens “whose convictions were obtained through plea agreements and who, notwithstanding those convictions, would have been eligible for § [1182(c)] relief at the time of their plea under the law then in effect.” INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 296, 326 (2001). 2 Case: 16-16635 Date Filed: 10/13/2017 Page: 3 of 6 If a statutory bar to review applies, we nonetheless retain jurisdiction to consider constitutional challenges and questions of law arising out of the alien’s removal proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). An alien has no constitutional right to discretionary relief or to be eligible for discretionary relief from removal. See, e.g., Balogun v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 304 F.3d 1303, 1311 (11th Cir. 2002). A petitioner must allege a colorable constitutional violation to overcome the jurisdictional bar, otherwise, we do not have jurisdiction over discretionary relief. Arias, 482 F.3d at 1284. We generally lack jurisdiction to review Julien’s order of removal because he was ordered removed based on his conviction for an aggravated felony, as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(iii). See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). Thus, to the extent Julien asserts the IJ did not properly weigh the facts in his ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals