Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Tenth Circuit· 7/10/2009

Arambula-Medina v. Holder

Citations

  • 572 F.3d 824
  • 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 15592
  • 2009 WL 1978726

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).

Judges: Kelly, Briscoe, Holmes

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

14 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Arambula-Medina v. Holder

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.