Maria Martinez-Rosas 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.

• holding that we had jurisdiction to consider whether the agency’s application of the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard violated the petitioner’s constitutional right to due process
• recognizing that we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination regarding the granting of cancellation of removal
• holding that a “claim must have some possible validity” to be “colorable” (citation omitted)
• concluding that the petitioner’s argument that the IJ violated her right to due process by misapplying the facts of her case to applicable law was “nothing more than an argument that the IJ abused his discretion, a matter over which we have no jurisdiction”
• reiterating after the REAL ID Act, Pub.L. No. 109-13, Div. B, 119 Stat. 231 (2005
• noting that a hardship determination is “subjective [and] discretionary”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).