Case: 16-16635 Date Filed: 10/13/2017 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-16635
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
Agency No. A037-178-693
EDUARDO A. JULIEN,
Petitioner,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
________________________
Petition for Review of a Decision of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
________________________
(October 13, 2017)
Before HULL, WILSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 16-16635 Date Filed: 10/13/2017 Page: 2 of 6
Eduardo Julien seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA)
final order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for a
waiver of inadmissibility. Julien asserts the IJ misstated and misapplied the
holding from the BIA’s decision in Matter of Buscemi, 19 I&N Dec. 628 (BIA
1988), and the IJ wrongly balanced the equities in his case. Julien also contends
substantial evidence did not support the IJ’s adverse credibility finding. After
review, we dismiss in part and deny in part.
I. DISCUSSION
A. Jurisdiction
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), we lack jurisdiction to review any final
removal order against an alien who is removable by reason of having committed,
among other things, an aggravated felony, as defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43),
under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Moreover, we also lack jurisdiction to review
decisions regarding removability that have been left to the discretion of the
Attorney General. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). A decision to grant or deny a
waiver of inadmissibility 1 is left to the discretion of the Attorney General. Arias v.
U.S. Att’y Gen., 482 F.3d 1281, 1283 (11th Cir. 2007).
1
Under former 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c), lawful permanent residents who were removable
due to certain criminal convictions were eligible for a discretionary waiver of inadmissibility.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c). Although this statute was effectively repealed in 1990, it remains
available to aliens “whose convictions were obtained through plea agreements and who,
notwithstanding those convictions, would have been eligible for § [1182(c)] relief at the time of
their plea under the law then in effect.” INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 296, 326 (2001).
2
Case: 16-16635 Date Filed: 10/13/2017 Page: 3 of 6
If a statutory bar to review applies, we nonetheless retain jurisdiction to
consider constitutional challenges and questions of law arising out of the alien’s
removal proceedings. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). An alien has no
constitutional right to discretionary relief or to be eligible for discretionary relief
from removal. See, e.g., Balogun v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 304 F.3d 1303, 1311 (11th
Cir. 2002). A petitioner must allege a colorable constitutional violation to
overcome the jurisdictional bar, otherwise, we do not have jurisdiction over
discretionary relief. Arias, 482 F.3d at 1284.
We generally lack jurisdiction to review Julien’s order of removal because
he was ordered removed based on his conviction for an aggravated felony, as
defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(iii). See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). Thus, to the
extent Julien asserts the IJ did not properly weigh the facts in his case, he makes a
“garden-variety” abuse of discretion argument over which this Court lacks
jurisdiction. See Alvarez Acosta v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 524 F.3d 1191, 1196-97 (11th
Cir. 2008) (explaining a “garden-variety abuse of discretion argument” the IJ failed
to properly weigh the factual scenario the alien presented does not preset a legal
question). We dismiss Julien’s petition as to his abuse of discretion argument.
We also lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s credibility determination because
Julien is removable as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony, and 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(C) strips courts of jurisdiction to review orders of removal as to such
3
Case: 16-16635 Date Filed: 10/13/2017 Page: 4 of 6
aliens. We have jurisdiction to review only constitutional claims and questions of
law, and as such, cannot review Julien’s argument challenging the IJ’s adverse
credibility conclusion, which is a factual determination. See Ruiz v. U.S. Att’y
Gen., 440 F.3d 1247, 1254-55 (11th Cir. 2006) (providing we review factual
determinations, which include credibility determinations, under the substantial
evidence test). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition in this respect.
B. Matter of Buscemi
Julien also contends the IJ misstated and misapplied the holding in Matter of
Buscemi. This is a question of law over which we have jurisdiction. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(D).
In Matter of Buscemi, the BIA held when deciding whether to grant a waiver
of inadmissibility, an IJ must consider all of the facts and circumstances involved,
and must balance the social and human considerations presented in an alien’s favor
against the adverse factors evidencing his flaws as a permanent resident. Matter of
Buscemi, 19 I&N Dec. 628, 633 (1988). The BIA further explained “as negative
factors grow more serious, it becomes incumbent upon the alien to introduce
additional offsetting favorable evidence, which in some cases may have to involve
unusual or outstanding equities.” Id. The BIA noted such a heightened showing is
required for where an alien has been convicted of a serious drug offense, or “may
be mandated because of a single serious crime.” Id. at 633-34. The BIA also
4
Case: 16-16635 Date Filed: 10/13/2017 Page: 5 of 6
noted even where an alien demonstrates unusual and outstanding equities exist,
such a showing does not compel the IJ to exercise that discretion in his favor. Id.
at 634.
The IJ, in denying Julien’s request for waiver of inadmissibility, concluded
that, pursuant to Matter of Buscemi, he must establish unusual and outstanding
equities to outweigh his manslaughter conviction, which the IJ determined was a
violent crime and “a powerful adverse factor.” The IJ then provided a detailed
explanation of the facts, and explained why Julien had not presented equities
sufficient to outweigh his manslaughter conviction, and denied his request for
relief. While Julien is correct that Matter of Buscemi does not categorically require
that all waiver of inadmissibility applicants establish unusual or outstanding
equities, the BIA’s decision makes clear that should the IJ decide an alien’s prior
conviction is serious, then the alien can be made to establish unusual or
outstanding equities to warrant relief from removal. See Matter of Buscemi, 19
I&N Dec. at 633-34. The IJ specifically concluded Julien’s manslaughter
conviction was a very violent and serious offense, and thus, it was proper for the IJ
to require he demonstrate unusual and outstanding equities in support of his
request for a waiver of inadmissibility. See id. The IJ made no legal error in its
application of Matter of Buscemi. Accordingly, we deny the petition in this
respect.
5
Case: 16-16635 Date Filed: 10/13/2017 Page: 6 of 6
II. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, we dismiss in part, and deny in part.
Petition DISMISSED in part, and DENIED in part.
6