Case: 17-10636 Date Filed: 08/19/2020 Page: 1 of 86 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-10636 ________________________ Agency No. A072-565-851 PANKAJKUMAR S. PATEL, JYOTSNABEN P. PATEL, NISHANTKUMAR PATEL, Petitioners, versus UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ________________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ________________________ (August 19, 2020) Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, WILSON, MARTIN, JORDAN, Case: 17-10636 Date Filed: 08/19/2020 Page: 2 of 86 ROSENBAUM, JILL PRYOR, NEWSOM, BRANCH, GRANT, LUCK, LAGOA, TJOFLAT, ED CARNES, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.* TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge, delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, NEWSOM, BRANCH, GRANT, LUCK, LAGOA, ED CARNES, and MARCUS, Circuit Judges, joined. TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge: Pankajkumar Patel seeks review of a final order of removal from the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). Patel sought discretionary relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1255(i), which permits an alien who entered without inspection to obtain relief from removal if, among other things, the alien is the beneficiary of a labor certification. The BIA determined that Patel was ineligible for such relief because he falsely represented himself as a citizen for a benefit when he applied for a Georgia driver’s license. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii)(I). Patel now petitions, asking us to resolve two questions. First, he argues that, as a factual matter, he did not falsely represent himself as a citizen because he merely checked the wrong box on the license application form. Second, Patel argues that his misrepresentation * Judges Gerald Bard Tjoflat, Stanley Marcus, and Ed Carnes were members of the en banc Court that heard oral argument in this case. Judges Tjoflat and Marcus took senior status on November 19, 2019 and December 6, 2019, respectively, and both have elected to participate in this decision pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(c)(1). Judge Ed Carnes took senior status on June 30, 2020 and has elected to participate in this decision pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(c)(2). Judge Andrew L. Brasher joined the Court on June 30, 2020 and did not participate in this en banc proceeding. 2 Case: 17-10636 Date Filed: 08/19/2020 Page: 3 of 86 was not material because the benefit, a Georgia driver’s license, is available to non-citizens. This case requires us to determine the scope of a jurisdiction-stripping provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B). That provision provides that “no court shall have jurisdiction to review” “any judgment regarding the granting of relief” for certain enumerated categories of discretionary relief. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Section 1255, the relief for which Patel applied, is one of the enumerated categories in § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). In our first published opinion to interpret § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), we drew a distinction between “appellate review of discretionary decisions” and “review of non-discretionary legal decisions that pertain to statutory eligibility for discretionary relief.” Gonzalez-Oropeza v. U.S. Attorney General, 321 F.3d 1331, 1332 (11th Cir. 2003). Since then, we have held in numerous cases that we lack jurisdiction ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals