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. |
|