CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
JORGE HERNANDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
   No. 22-3120
On Petition for Review from the Board of Immigration Appeals;
No. A 073 646 149.
Decided and Filed: February 6, 2023
Before: STRANCH, MURPHY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. When the Attorney General or his designee, the Board of Immigration Appeals, denies discretionary relief to an immigrant, the immigration laws limit the jurisdiction of the courts to review that decision. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). This jurisdictional limit bars us from reviewing not just the Board’s ultimate discretionary choice to deny relief but also any factual findings underlying that choice. See Patel v. Garland, 142 S. Ct. 1614, 1621–23 (2022). Yet a jurisdictional safe harbor preserves our power to review “questions of law” embedded in the discretionary decision, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), including a “mixed question of law and fact” that requires the Board to consider whether the historical facts meet the governing legal test, Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, 140 S. Ct. 1062, 1068–69 (2020) (citation omitted).

This case requires us to consider how these rules apply to the Board’s denial of one type of discretionary relief: cancellation of removal. The Board has discretion to cancel the removal of immigrants who meet four eligibility requirements—including that they have “good moral character” and that their removal would cause sufficient “hardship” to a qualifying relative. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(B), (D). We recently held that the Board’s conclusion that the historical facts did not rise to the required level of “hardship” resolved a mixed question of law and fact that we have jurisdiction to review. See Singh v. Rosen, 984 F.3d 1142, 1149–54 (6th Cir. 2021). Like Singh, we now hold that the question whether the historical facts show that an immigrant lacks “good moral character” also qualifies as a mixed question within our jurisdiction.

We thus may review Jorge Hernandez’s argument that the Board wrongly held that he lacked good moral character because his negative attributes (including two drinking-and-driving convictions) outweighed his positive attributes (including his support of his ill wife). That said, the Board properly concluded that Hernandez’s history of alcohol use and drinking-and-driving convictions showed his lack of “good moral character.” We thus deny his petition for review on the merits.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
ANTWONE MIGUEL SANDERS,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 21-5945
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington.
No. 5:20-cr-00009-1—Joseph M. Hood, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: February 6, 2023
Before: MOORE, CLAY, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Defendant Antwone Sanders appeals from the judgment of conviction and sentence entered by the district court, pursuant to Defendant’s conditional guilty plea to one count of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and one count of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), wherein Defendant reserved the right to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress the evidence that the Lexington Police Department acquired from a search of Defendant’s residence. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the district court’s order denying Defendant’s motion to suppress and VACATE Defendant’s convictions and sentence. We REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.