USCA11 Case: 22-11239 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 03/22/2023 Page: 1 of 6 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-11239 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ HAL MERVIN RUST, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A058-869-804 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 22-11239 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 03/22/2023 Page: 2 of 6 2 Opinion of the Court 22-11239 Before NEWSOM, BRANCH, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Hal Rust petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) affirmance of the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for a good-faith-marriage waiver of the requirement to file a joint petition to remove conditions on his lawful perma- nent residence. Rust argues that the IJ and BIA weighed the evi- dence incorrectly and failed to consider the evidence that he pro- vided in support of his argument that the marriage was entered into in good faith. I We have an obligation to inquire into our own jurisdiction sua sponte and review jurisdictional questions de novo. Bing Quan Lin v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 881 F.3d 860, 866 (11th Cir. 2018). We lack jurisdiction to review “any judgment regarding” certain forms of discretionary relief. See Immigration and Nation- ality Act (INA) § 242(a)(2)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). We re- tain jurisdiction to review constitutional or legal claims. INA § 242(a)(2)(D), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). The scope of that jurisdic- tion extends only to colorable questions of law and constitutional claims. Arias v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 482 F.3d 1281, 1284 & n.2 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam); Patel v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 971 F.3d 1258, 1275 (11th Cir. 2020) (en banc) (clarifying that a legal claim must also be colorable), aff’d sub nom., Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614 (2022). USCA11 Case: 22-11239 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 03/22/2023 Page: 3 of 6 22-11239 Opinion of the Court 3 We have held that petitioners may not mask “a garden-variety abuse-of-discretion argument—which can be made by virtually every alien subject to a final removal order”—as a constitutional or legal claim in order to invoke our jurisdiction. Alvarez Acosta v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 524 F.3d 1191, 1196–97 (11th Cir. 2008). We have called claims that the IJ improperly weighed the evidence “garden- variety abuse of discretion argument[s] that [are] insufficient to state a legal or constitutional claim.” Fynn v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 752 F.3d 1250, 1252 (11th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (quotation marks omitted). But whether the agency failed to give reasoned consid- eration to an issue is a question of law. Jeune v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 810 F.3d 792, 799 (11th Cir. 2016). The agency does not need to specifically address each claim made or each piece of evidence pre- sented, but it must consider all the evidence submitted. Id. at 803. A non-citizen who marries a United States citizen will obtain conditional residency status. INA § 216(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(a)(1). The non-citizen can have …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals