De La Rosa-Rodriguez v. Garland

The Limited Review Provision provides that: Nothing in subparagraph (B) or (C), which limits or eliminates judicial review, shall be construed as precluding review of constitutional claims or questions of law raised upon a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).

De La Rosa appealed the denial of his petition for cancellation of removal. De La Rosa assigned error to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) for failing to find his children would suffer exceptional hardship if removed. On appeal, De La Rosa argued the BIA failed to apply precedent, and that pursuant to the Limited Review Provision, the Court had jurisdiction to review his petition because it presents a question of law. In response, the Attorney General argued that the Limited Review Provision didn't’t apply because he had discretion to grant cancellation of removal based on hardship under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). The Limited Review Provision provides that: Nothing in subparagraph (B) or (C), which limits or eliminates judicial review, shall be construed as precluding review of constitutional claims or questions of law raised upon a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). Under Mendez-Castro, the Court reasoned that the Limited Review Provision granted jurisdiction to determine De La Rosa’s claim. The Court held the BIA correctly applied the legal standard for petitions of removal because they considered all the hardship factors and determined De La Rosa failed to establish his children would face hardship substantially higher than normal when a parent is removed. Petition denied.