Adaobi Stella Obioha v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that petitioner’s due process claim, stemming from denial of motion to reopen to apply for cancellation of removal, was flawed, in part, because “an alien does not have a legal entitlement to discretionary relief’
• noting that courts lack jurisdiction to review the Board’s decision to deny a petition for cancellation of removal
• providing standard of review and explaining that motion to remand where noncitizen seeks to pursue a new theory for relief is best understood as a motion to reopen
• providing standard of review and explaining two contexts in which the Board may remand 2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-2188 Doc: 30 Filed: 06/27/2024 Pg: 3 of 3 a matter to the immigration court
• acknowledging no jurisdiction to review a decision to deny cancellation of removal, but noting that the BIA “never got that far” and finding reviewable its decision to deny a request to remand
• “Because § 1252(a)(2)(B)(I) precludes our review of an ‘exceptional and extremely unusual hardship’ determination under § 1229b(b)(l)(D

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).