Filed: Sep. 28, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 18-1261 _ JUAN TOMAS SANCHEZ-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Respondent _ On Petition for Review of a Final Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Immigration Judge: Honorable Kuyomars “Q” Golparvar (Agency No. A089-607-146) _ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) September 24, 2018 Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: September 28, 2018)
Summary: NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT _ No. 18-1261 _ JUAN TOMAS SANCHEZ-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Respondent _ On Petition for Review of a Final Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Immigration Judge: Honorable Kuyomars “Q” Golparvar (Agency No. A089-607-146) _ Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a) September 24, 2018 Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges (Opinion filed: September 28, 2018) _..
More
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
________________
No. 18-1261
________________
JUAN TOMAS SANCHEZ-RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Respondent
________________
On Petition for Review of a Final Order
of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Immigration Judge: Honorable Kuyomars “Q” Golparvar
(Agency No. A089-607-146)
________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
September 24, 2018
Before: AMBRO, CHAGARES and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: September 28, 2018)
________________
OPINION*
________________
AMBRO, Circuit Judge
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
Juan Tomas Sanchez-Rodriguez asks us to reverse the denial by the Board of
Immigration Appeals of a discretionary waiver of inadmissibility. We lack jurisdiction to
do so, and thus we dismiss his petition. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Cospito v. Att’y
Gen.,
539 F.3d 166, 170 (3d Cir. 2008).
Sanchez-Rodriguez first entered the United States in 2000. He later married a
United States citizen, and his status was adjusted to lawful permanent resident. Sanchez-
Rodriguez’s immigration problems began after he was convicted for fraud and identity
theft, and the Government sought to remove him from the United States as an “alien who
is convicted of an aggravated felony at any time after admission[.]” 8 U.S.C.
§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii).
To avoid removal, Sanchez-Rodriguez requested an adjustment of status, and it is
undisputed that he cannot obtain the relief he requests without a discretionary waiver of
inadmissibility. See
id. § 1182(h). Waivers may be granted, among other reasons, if
removal would result in “extreme hardship” for a citizen or a permanent resident who is a
member of the petitioner’s immediate family. See
id. The Immigration Judge (“IJ”) held
both that Sanchez-Rodriguez was statutorily ineligible for a waiver and that, even if he
were eligible, the IJ would exercise his discretion to deny the waiver because Sanchez-
Rodriguez’s criminal record outweighed the hardship his family would suffer from his
removal. The Board dismissed his appeal.
Sanchez-Rodriguez disagrees with the IJ and Board’s balancing of the factors that
bear on whether they decide to grant a discretionary waiver. But Congress has decreed
that “our jurisdiction does not extend to an agency’s factual and discretionary
determinations underlying the denial of waivers based on an analysis involving extreme
hardship.”
Cospito, 539 F.3d at 170; accord 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). We cannot
2
second guess whether his particular circumstances warrant a waiver. Accordingly, we
dismiss his petition for review.
3