Arambula-Medina v. Holder

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that there is no liberty or property interest in the outcome of an application for cancellation of removal
• concluding that “the determination of whether the petitioner’s removal from the United States ‘would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship’ to a qualifying relative” is discretionary (citations omitted)
• concluding that the only protections afforded an alien seeking to remain in the United States “are the minimal procedural due process rights for an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner”
• rejecting alien’s attempts to couch challenge to BIA’s decision as a question of law or a constitutional question and concluding court lacked jurisdiction to review “the discretionary aspects of a decision concerning cancellation of removal”
• “[A]liens do not have a constitutional right to enter or remain in the United States[.]”
• “[A] petitioner has no liberty or property interest in obtaining purely discretionary relief.” (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).