Gyamfi v. Whitaker ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •           United States Court of Appeals
    For the First Circuit
    No. 18-1093
    AMMA ADU GYAMFI,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    MATTHEW G. WHITAKER,
    ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL,
    Respondent.
    PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF THE
    BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS
    Before
    Thompson, Kayatta, and Barron,
    Circuit Judges.
    Saher Joseph Macarius, Audrey Botros, and Law Offices of Saher
    Joseph Macarius LLC on brief for petitioner.
    Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil
    Division, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Senior Litigation Counsel,
    Office of Immigration Litigation, and Anna Juarez, Trial Attorney,
    Office of Immigration Litigation, on brief for respondent.
    January 10, 2019
    
    Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2), Acting Attorney General
    Matthew G. Whitaker has been substituted for former Attorney
    General Jefferson B. Sessions, III as the respondent.
    THOMPSON, Circuit Judge.        Petitioner Amma Adu Gyamfi
    ("Gyamfi") challenges the Board of Immigration Appeals's ("BIA")
    denial of her motion to reopen and its decision not to exercise
    its sua sponte authority to reopen her case and grant her request
    for an adjustment of status.        For the reasons we detail below, we
    deny and dismiss Gyamfi's petition.
    BACKGROUND
    In March of 2004, Gyamfi, a native of Ghana and resident
    of   Italy    from   1992   until   2004,   arrived   in   the   U.S.   on   a
    nonimmigrant B-2 visa that granted her a six-month stay here.
    Gyamfi didn't leave after her permissible time here expired, and
    in November 2007, she married a U.S. citizen, Mark Parrish.             That
    following April, Parrish filed an I-130 petition1 to get Gyamfi
    green-card status as the spouse of a U.S. citizen, but when the
    Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") issued a notice of intent
    to deny the petition (because the newlyweds hadn't demonstrated
    the legitimacy of their marriage), Parrish wound up admitting in
    a 2009 DHS interview that he had made the petition as "a favor" to
    Gyamfi.      Consequently, he withdrew the petition, and DHS denied
    Gyamfi's application for adjustment of status in April 2009.
    1 An I-130 petition allows a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent
    resident to sponsor an alien relative's application for permanent
    resident status.
    - 2 -
    A month later, DHS initiated removal proceedings against
    Gyamfi: she was charged with removability as an alien who remained
    in the U.S. for a time longer than permitted after being admitted
    as a nonimmigrant visitor (8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B)).2     Over the
    course of a couple of years (2009-2010) and a few hearings before
    an immigration judge ("IJ"), Gyamfi would first pursue a new I-
    130 petition, then withdraw it, and in the end, seek asylum
    protection.3
    Unpersuaded by her arguments and testimony relative to
    her lamentations of persecution, in March 2013, the IJ ordered her
    removed.4     The BIA affirmed the IJ and, in July 2014, dismissed
    the appeal.    Gyamfi did not seek judicial review of that decision.
    Fast-forward three years to August 31, 2017:   in light
    of an I-130 petition filed in November 2015 on her behalf by her
    recently naturalized U.S. citizen daughter5 (and which was approved
    2 Gyamfi also was charged as an alien who was inadmissible at the
    time of entry because she procured, or sought to procure, an
    immigration benefit by fraud or by willfully misrepresenting a
    material fact, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A), but that was later
    withdrawn.
    3 She testified at a September 2010 hearing that she never applied
    for asylum in Italy, her home for thirteen years after leaving
    Ghana in 1992. As for why she never mentioned harboring any fear
    of returning to Ghana between her 2004 arrival in the U.S. and the
    September 2010 hearing, she testified she had hoped to adjust
    status through Parrish.
    4  During the proceedings before the IJ, Gyamfi conceded
    removability only as an alien who overstayed her visitor's visa.
    5 Gyamfi has six children, five of whom are U.S. citizens and live
    in the United States. Her eldest child, now 28 years old, is a
    citizen of Ghana residing there.   Her next two eldest, now 25 and
    - 3 -
    by DHS in April 2016), Gyamfi sought to adjust her status.               She
    moved to reopen her case and also requested sua sponte ("on its
    own motion") reopening by the BIA premised on the hardship her
    removal would have on her children.            In response, DHS filed an
    opposition to the motion, albeit late.
    The BIA denied Gyamfi's motion as untimely (the final
    administrative order entered in July of 2014, and the BIA didn't
    receive the motion to reopen until August 2017) and not falling
    within any exception to the ninety-day window to file a motion to
    reopen.     See      8     U.S.C.     §   1229a(c)(7)(C)(i);   8    C.F.R.
    §§   1003.2(c)(2),       1003(c)(3)(i)-(iv).      In   addition,   the   BIA
    declined to exercise its discretionary authority to reopen the
    proceedings sua sponte, finding that Gyamfi failed to demonstrate
    an exceptional situation that would warrant the exercise of its
    sua sponte power, and she alleged "no current health issues
    regarding [her I-130-petitioning daughter] or her other United
    States citizen children that might warrant a finding of exceptional
    circumstances."
    Gyamfi timely petitioned this court for review.
    ANALYSIS
    Gyamfi offers up a smorgasbord of appellate contentions,
    21 years old, were born in Italy, but are U.S. citizens residing
    here. And she has three minor U.S. citizen children (ages 17, 12,
    and 10), all of whom were born in the U.S. and live here now.
    - 4 -
    but distilling those arguments to their core essence as best we
    can, we think they primarily fit under two main headings:          (1) the
    BIA abused its discretion by denying her motion to reopen; or, in
    the alternative, (2) the BIA should have deployed its discretionary
    authority to reopen the proceedings sua sponte.            She advances
    various arguments in support of these two issues, which we will
    explore in turn.
    And as we review Gyamfi's contestations, we necessarily
    bear in mind our familiar standard:             to the extent we have
    jurisdiction, "[b]ecause a motion to reopen removal proceedings is
    a disfavored tool, given the threat it poses to finality, the BIA
    has a fair amount of latitude to grant or deny the motion and our
    review is for abuse of discretion only."        Mazariegos v. Lynch, 
    790 F.3d 280
    , 285 (1st Cir. 2015) (citing Perez v. Holder, 
    740 F.3d 57
    , 61 (1st Cir. 2014)); see also Sihotang v. Sessions, 
    900 F.3d 46
    , 48 (1st Cir. 2018) ("Motions to reopen -- especially untimely
    motions   to   reopen   --   are   disfavored   in   immigration   cases.
    Consequently, an alien who seeks to reopen removal proceedings out
    of time ordinarily faces a steep uphill climb.").              Unless a
    petitioner can show that the BIA either committed a material error
    of law or exercised its authority arbitrarily, capriciously, or
    irrationally, we will uphold the BIA's decision.           See Bbale v.
    Lynch, 
    840 F.3d 63
    , 66 (1st Cir. 2016) (citing Rosa v. Gonzales,
    
    484 F.3d 125
    , 127 (1st Cir. 2007)).
    - 5 -
    Before diving into Gyamfi's argument, saying a bit more
    about the pertinent aspects of the ninety-day rule would be
    helpful.6   Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i), an alien is
    entitled to file one motion to reopen removal proceedings within
    ninety days after the final order of removal. See 
    id. (instructing that,
    unless an exception applies, "the motion to reopen shall be
    filed within 90 days of the date of entry of a final administrative
    order of removal"); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (stating that,
    save for specified exceptions, "an alien may file only one motion
    to reopen removal proceedings (whether before the Board or the
    Immigration Judge) and that motion must be filed no later than 90
    days after the date on which the final administrative decision was
    rendered in the proceeding sought to be reopened"); Neves v.
    Holder, 
    613 F.3d 30
    , 32-33 (1st Cir. 2010)(per curiam).     As for
    6 We note here that Gyamfi makes the assertion that a petitioner
    can file a motion to reopen either within ninety days of the final
    administrative order or within 180 days due to exceptional
    circumstances,   citing INA § 240(b)(5)(c)(i), (e)(6)(C) -- this
    provision has been repealed, and its replacement is codified at 8
    U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i).    There, the reference to 180 days
    concerns rescission of an order of removal issued because of an
    alien's failure to appear: such a removal order can be rescinded
    if an alien files a motion to reopen "within 180 days after the
    date of the order of removal if the alien demonstrates that the
    failure to appear was because of exceptional circumstances
    . . . ."       Sec. 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i).    This is not in play in
    Gyamfi's case, thus the 180-day cut-off is not applicable.
    - 6 -
    the exceptions, Congress enacted a limited list.       See 8 U.S.C. §
    1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii)-(iv); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3).7
    1. Did the BIA abuse its discretion?8
    a.   The Ninety-Day Rule
    Gyamfi claims the BIA abused its discretion when it
    declined to grant her motion to reopen.      She does not dispute that
    her August 2017 filing missed the deadline -- the BIA's final
    7 For example, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3) instructs that the ninety-
    day rule
    [s]hall not apply to a motion to reopen proceedings:
    . . .
    (ii) To apply or reapply for asylum or withholding of
    deportation based on changed circumstances arising in
    the country of nationality or in the country to which
    deportation has been ordered, if such evidence is
    material and was not available and could not have been
    discovered or presented at the previous hearing;
    (iii) Agreed upon by all parties and jointly filed.
    Notwithstanding such agreement, the parties may contest
    the issues in a reopened proceeding[.]
    8 As a threshold matter, Gyamfi submits that the BIA stumbled out
    of the starting gate when it deemed her motion opposed.    Recall
    that DHS's opposition to Gyamfi's motion to reopen was filed out
    of time -- Gyamfi submitted a response to that late filing. But
    we espy no error of law or abuse of discretion. As the government
    correctly points out, considering a late-filed brief is not
    proscribed, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(g)(3), and regardless, the BIA
    is duty-bound to use its independent judgment when facing these
    motions, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(1)(ii). And besides, Gyamfi does
    not even argue that the BIA improperly based its denial of her
    motion on the substantive arguments in DHS's papers.         This
    argument, then, is a nonstarter, so we move on to her primary
    challenges.
    - 7 -
    administrative order was issued on July 17, 2014 and October 13,
    2014 (ninety days later) was the last day Gyamfi could have filed
    her motion.    However, she asserts that because she was "prima
    facie" eligible for status adjustment as a result of the previously
    unavailable evidence (the I-130 visa her daughter filed on her
    behalf long after the expiration of the ninety-day limit), the BIA
    should have ruled differently on 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i)'s
    ninety-day bar.
    The government disagrees, and its position is simple:
    the ninety-day limit expired and no exception applies.           Indeed,
    the government points out that Gyamfi cannot be "prima facie"
    eligible for status adjustment given the untimeliness of her
    motion.
    In support of her claim of "prima facie" eligibility
    Gyamfi cites to Matter of Garcia, 16 I. & N. Dec. 653, 654 (B.I.A.
    1978), a case wherein the BIA explained the appropriateness of
    exercising its discretion (at least at that time) to reopen
    immigration   proceedings   during   the   pendency   of   adjustment   of
    status applications of prima facie eligible movants.             But her
    reliance on this case is misplaced.         Garcia was decided before
    Congress enacted time and number bars on motions to reopen, Lemus
    v. Sessions, 
    900 F.3d 15
    , 19 (1st Cir. 2018) (citing Dada v.
    Mukasey, 
    554 U.S. 1
    , 13 (2008) (outlining that history)), and
    what's more, the BIA, itself, has moved away from its Garcia
    - 8 -
    holding, see 
    id. (collecting BIA
    cases).                 Given this evolution
    (and as we have previously noted), our confidence in Garcia's
    continuing applicability has been undercut.               
    Id. But whether
    or
    not   viable,    Garcia's      recognition    of   the    IJ's      discretionary
    authority is not a rule mandating the exercise of same.
    Accordingly, we believe the government has the better
    argument on the application of the ninety-day rule.                 Though Gyamfi
    tells us she can present new evidence, clearly the new evidence
    she offers, an I-130 visa, is not a statutory exception to the
    rule.   See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(3)(i)-
    (iv).     And absent an exception operating to prevent the ninety-
    day rule from applying (Gyamfi doesn't actually argue that one
    does), motions to reopen are subject to the ninety-day rule and
    Gyamfi missed it.        We see no abuse of discretion.
    b.     Equitable Tolling
    Alternatively,     Gyamfi   argues   the       BIA   erred    in   not
    reopening her removal proceedings because she established "unusual
    facts   and     exceptional      circumstances"    meriting        the    equitable
    tolling    of   the     ninety-day   deadline   for    filing      such    motions.
    Gyamfi submits that she's made the equitable tolling showing by,
    first, demonstrating that she couldn't have known about her new I-
    130   beneficiary       status   within   ninety      days    of    her    original
    proceedings and as such, her ignorance of what the future actually
    would bring constitutes an extraordinary circumstance.                      As she
    - 9 -
    puts it, "applying this statutory deadline does not serve the
    interests of justice in this case."           Second, she puts into the
    "extraordinary circumstances" basket the BIA's alleged error in
    neglecting to consider any factors besides the health of her
    children.9    In particular, she emphasizes the hardship her removal
    will have on her kids:     if they return to Ghana with Gyamfi, they
    will not enjoy a U.S. education, and Ghanaian high crime and
    mortality rates, for example, would negatively affect them; and if
    they stay in the U.S. without her, this also would negatively
    impact them.      The government responds that even if equitable
    tolling was a viable avenue to relief in the immigration context,
    the BIA did not abuse its discretion in finding that Gyamfi has
    not made the requisite showing to support its use.         Once again, we
    agree with the government.
    Equitable   tolling   "extends    statutory   deadlines   in
    extraordinary circumstances for parties who were prevented from
    complying with them through no fault or lack of diligence of their
    own."   
    Neves, 613 F.3d at 36
    (citing Fustaguio Do Nascimento v.
    Mukasey, 
    549 F.3d 12
    , 18-19 (1st Cir. 2008)). So the party seeking
    to toll the deadline bears the burden of showing: "(1) that he has
    9 Gyamfi also points to the "five factors" laid out in Matter of
    J-J-, 21 I. & N. Dec. 976 (B.I.A. 1997), saying the BIA's failure
    to consider these factors constitutes legal error. To the extent
    she means to argue that case to support her equitable tolling
    argument, we fail to see its relevance -- Matter of J-J- does not
    touch on equitable tolling.
    - 10 -
    been    pursuing   his   rights   diligently,   and    (2)   that   some
    extraordinary circumstance stood in his way."         
    Id. (quoting Pace
    v. DiGuglielmo, 
    544 U.S. 408
    , 418 (2005)). We are mindful, though,
    that equitable tolling "is a rare remedy to be applied in unusual
    circumstances, not a cure-all for an entirely common state of
    affairs." 
    Id. (quoting Wallace
    v. Kato, 
    549 U.S. 384
    , 396 (2007)).
    Furthermore, the decision to apply equitable tolling is a judgment
    call,   see Cordle v. Guarino, 
    428 F.3d 46
    , 48 (1st Cir. 2005)
    (applying the abuse of discretion standard to the district court's
    decision regarding equitable tolling), so the BIA's decision "will
    stand unless [its] resolution rests on a material error of law or
    a manifestly arbitrary exercise of judgment," Meng Hua Wan v.
    Holder, 
    776 F.3d 52
    , 56 (1st Cir. 2015) (citing Fustaguio Do
    
    Nascimento, 549 F.3d at 18-19
    ).
    This court has not decided whether equitable tolling may
    apply in this context.10    See, e.g., 
    Neves, 613 F.3d at 36
    ; Chedid
    v. Holder, 
    573 F.3d 33
    , 37 (1st Cir. 2009); see also Mata v. Lynch,
    
    135 S. Ct. 2150
    , 2156 n.3 (2015) (noting that the Court had "no
    opinion as to whether or when the INA allows the Board to equitably
    toll the 90–day period to file a motion to reopen").         We take our
    10 Gyamfi tells us that we have previously "indicated that [we]
    would follow the Ninth and Second Circuits[']" lead and apply
    equitable tolling in this context, citing our opinion in Jobe v.
    INS, 
    238 F.3d 96
    (1st Cir. 2001) (en banc).   Simply put, this is
    not true, and we need not say more than that.
    - 11 -
    cue from decisions past and assume, without deciding, that the
    ninety-day rule is subject to equitable tolling.             See 
    Neves, 613 F.3d at 36
    (citing 
    Chedid, 573 F.3d at 37
    ).
    Even giving Gyamfi the benefit of that assumption, she
    cannot prevail.     First, Gyamfi failed to meet the extraordinary
    circumstances prong.       She points us to no authority to support her
    supposition that the existence of new evidence (the I-130) is an
    extraordinary    circumstance.       Indeed,      an   unforeseeable   future
    occurrence cannot logically be viewed as an influence on past
    conduct. Same goes for her contention about the detrimental impact
    of her removal on her children.              The horrors she portrays as
    befalling her children should she be required to depart the country
    are   little   different    today   as   during    the   ninety-day    window.
    Therefore, neither of Gyamfi's reasons for not timely filing can
    be characterized as an extraordinary circumstance that "stood in
    her way" when it came to meeting the statutory deadline.                 
    Jobe, 238 F.3d at 100
    ("The fundamental principle is that equitable
    tolling 'is appropriate only when the circumstances that cause a
    [party] to miss a filing deadline are out of [her] hands.'"
    (alteration in original) (quoting Salois v. Dime Sav. Bank, 
    128 F.3d 20
    , 25 (1st Cir. 1997))).
    In any event, even if we were to assume Gyamfi has
    demonstrated an extraordinary circumstance, she nonetheless fails
    to show how she diligently pursued her rights during the ninety-
    - 12 -
    day   window    or    the    sixteen   months     that    followed       the   I-130's
    approval.      Indeed, even overlooking the ninety-day period (during
    which she had no reason to seek to reopen as the I-130 was not yet
    in play, though she could have brought up the hardship-to-the-
    children argument), she still has a sixteen-month due diligence
    issue for which she has no convincing explanation.                             Gyamfi's
    argument is that she did her due diligence by getting a lawyer
    (the same one she'd had throughout, we note) and by submitting her
    motion to reopen once the I-130 was approved.                    But neither action
    accounts    for      the    sixteen-month     delay      following       the   I-130's
    approval.      See, e.g., Dawoud v. Holder, 
    561 F.3d 31
    , 36 (1st Cir.
    2009) (assuming equitable tolling was available but concluding
    nevertheless that a motion to reopen filed out of time (two years
    post-final decision and eleven months post-I-130 approval) did not
    warrant equitable tolling); 
    Chedid, 573 F.3d at 37
    (holding that
    when petitioner failed to "provide[] [any] information whatsoever
    regarding      the    actions    he    took     during     the    one-year      period
    immediately       following"     the    original         order,     he    failed    to
    demonstrate due diligence).
    In sum, Gyamfi fails to demonstrate how the BIA abused
    its discretion in any way, and having failed to do so, she is bound
    by the ninety-day rule, which expired long before she filed her
    motion to reopen.
    - 13 -
    2. Do we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision not to
    exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen the proceedings in
    this case?
    Absent an abuse of discretion by the BIA in its decision
    to deny Gyamfi's motion to reopen, we know that a motion to reopen
    can be granted only if the BIA exercises its sua sponte authority
    to reopen the proceedings -- something the BIA was asked to do
    here but did not.    Gyamfi contends this was error, specifically,
    constitutional due process error.          Peppering this section of her
    briefing with conclusory arguments that appear to be offered in
    support of her constitutional claim, her primary bone of contention
    seems to be that the BIA impermissibly ignored factors she says
    should have been considered as delineated in Matter of J-J-, 21 I.
    & N. Dec. 97611 (she lists the following factors:           hardship to a
    petitioner and her family; a petitioner's criminal history; the
    severity and number of immigration violations; the petitioner's
    cooperation   with   law    enforcement;    and   whether   removal   would
    comport with the government's policy objectives), thus depriving
    her of due process.        The government responds by challenging our
    jurisdiction to entertain Gyamfi's protestations.              Therefore,
    let's first discuss the converging dynamic of the BIA's sua sponte
    authority to reopen and our jurisdiction over its use of that
    authority -- to the extent it exists.
    11This is the same case Gyamfi mysteriously cited in support of
    her equitable tolling claim.
    - 14 -
    In past cases, "we have repeatedly held that we do not
    have jurisdiction to review challenges to the BIA's failure to
    exercise its sua sponte authority because such decisions are
    'committed to its unfettered discretion.'"                Matias v. Sessions,
    
    871 F.3d 65
    , 68 (1st Cir. 2017) (quoting Luis v. INS, 
    196 F.3d 36
    ,
    40 (1st Cir. 1999)); see also Reyes v. Sessions, 
    886 F.3d 184
    , 188
    (1st Cir. 2018) (quoting Charuc v. Holder, 
    737 F.3d 113
    , 115 (1st
    Cir. 2013)).           As rationale for so holding, we explained, "no
    judicially manageable standards are available for judging how and
    when    [the     BIA]    should    exercise    its    discretion,"   making   it
    "impossible      to     evaluate    [the]    agency   action   for   'abuse   of
    discretion'"; so "the very nature of the claim renders it not
    subject to judicial review."             
    Luis, 196 F.3d at 40
    (citations
    omitted); see also 
    Neves, 613 F.3d at 35
    .
    In an effort to convince us that we do in fact have
    jurisdiction, Gyamfi directs us to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), which
    reads in pertinent part:           "Nothing in subparagraph (B) or (C), or
    in any other provision of this chapter (other than this section)
    which limits or eliminates judicial review, shall be construed as
    precluding review of constitutional claims or questions of law
    raised upon a petition for review filed with an appropriate court
    of     appeals    in     accordance   with     this    section."     8   U.S.C.
    §    1252(a)(2)(D).        But this court has yet to rule on whether
    §    1252(a)(2)(D) gives us jurisdiction to review (under certain
    - 15 -
    circumstances) the BIA's decision not to reopen sua sponte.                          See
    
    Lemus, 900 F.3d at 19
    (citing 
    Reyes, 886 F.3d at 188
    ).
    Last    year,    in     Matias,    we       carefully      surveyed    the
    landscape against which this argument plays out, noting that "[o]ur
    no-jurisdiction rule originated with 
    Luis, 196 F.3d at 40
    ," but
    recognizing that Luis "was decided years before the 2005 passage
    of § 1252(a)(2)(D), so the fact that we announced such a blanket
    rule   then    does    not    decide    whether       §   1252(a)(2)(D)      gives    us
    jurisdiction today." 
    Matias, 871 F.3d at 68
    . And we also observed
    that "we have previously identified § 1252(a)(2)(D) as a potential
    jurisdiction-restorer          over    constitutional           claims     brought    in
    motions for sua sponte relief."            
    Id. at 68-69
    (citing Guerrero v.
    Holder, 
    766 F.3d 122
    , 126 n.12 (1st Cir. 2014)). However, "whether
    § 1252(a)(2)(D) has any effect on Luis's no-jurisdiction rule," as
    noted, remains an open question.            
    Id. at 69.
    Some of our sister circuits have tackled § 1252(a)(2)(D)
    in this context.       For example, the Seventh Circuit concluded that
    §   1252(a)(2)(D)      gives    it    jurisdiction         to   consider    legal    and
    constitutional claims presented in appeals to the BIA's sua sponte
    authority.     Cevilla v. Gonzales, 
    446 F.3d 658
    , 660 (7th Cir. 2006)
    (reasoning that "the general 'no law to apply' principle of
    judicial review of administrative action has been superseded in
    the immigration context by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)[(D)]").                        So in
    the    Seventh   Circuit,      appellate    jurisdiction          "extends     to    the
    - 16 -
    Board's refusal to reopen . . . removal proceedings sua sponte"
    when a constitutional claim or legal question is raised relevant
    to an underlying order of removal in the immigration context.
    Zambrano-Reyes v. Holder, 
    725 F.3d 744
    , 751 (7th Cir. 2013).12
    Other circuits, however, have a different take:           in the Sixth
    Circuit, for instance, § 1252(a)(2)(D) was found not to confer
    jurisdiction in the constitutional-claim context.        See, e.g., Rais
    v. Holder, 
    768 F.3d 453
    , 464 (6th Cir. 2014) (explaining that
    §    1252(a)(2)(D) "has no bearing on the question of whether courts
    may review the BIA's exercise of its sua sponte authority, for
    which no chapter of any legislation provides"); see also Zakar v.
    Sessions, 739 Fed. Appx. 774, 778 (6th Cir. 2018); Gor v. Holder,
    
    607 F.3d 180
    , 188 (6th Cir. 2010).
    So,   all   told,   some     jurisdictions     have   found
    §    1252(a)(2)(D) to be a game-changer; others have not.      But when
    faced with the same argument in both 
    Lemus, 900 F.3d at 19
    , and
    
    Reyes, 886 F.3d at 188
    , we declined to decide this issue, and we
    12  Some other circuits agree. See, e.g., Bonilla v. Lynch, 
    840 F.3d 575
    , 588 (9th Cir. 2016) (deciding that the court "has
    jurisdiction to review [BIA] decisions denying sua sponte
    reopening for the limited purpose of reviewing the reasoning behind
    the decisions for legal or constitutional error"); Nawaz v. Holder,
    314 Fed. Appx. 736, 737 (5th Cir. 2009) (per curiam) (concluding
    that the court did not have jurisdiction to review sua sponte
    denial unless "constitutional challenges . . . were raised before
    the BIA"); Tamenut v. Mukasey, 
    521 F.3d 1000
    , 1005 (8th Cir. 2008)
    (per curiam) (same).
    - 17 -
    do so again today.        That is because § 1252(a)(2)(D) "only arguably
    applies to a petitioner's constitutional or legal challenges if
    they are colorable," 
    Lemus, 900 F.3d at 19
    (citing Ayeni v. Holder,
    
    617 F.3d 67
    , 71 (1st Cir. 2010)), and here, even if § 1252(a)(2)(D)
    serves as a basis for jurisdiction, Gyamfi has not set forth any
    colorable claims.         We explain.
    As we said in Lemus, a due process claim can succeed
    only if there is a "cognizable liberty 
    interest." 900 F.3d at 19
    (quoting 
    Matias, 871 F.3d at 72
    ).                  We have further pointed out
    that    the     BIA's     decision       whether    to    exercise      its    "purely
    discretionary" sua sponte authority "does not create a cognizable
    liberty   interest."         
    Matias, 871 F.3d at 72
      (quoting Mejia-
    Orellana v. Gonzales, 
    502 F.3d 13
    , 17 (1st Cir. 2007)).                       And aside
    from   faulting     the     BIA    for    not    exercising     its    discretionary
    authority     to   reopen    her     removal      proceedings,       Gyamfi    has   not
    identified any other cognizable liberty interest.                     In fact, Gyamfi
    drops the phrase "due process" one single time in her brief, and
    her    points    purportedly       in    support    of    her   due-process      claim
    (relating to the hardship to be suffered by her children) do not
    support the outcome she seeks and are not buttressed by controlling
    authority.       We have said -- and now repeat -- that "'[a] bare
    allegation of either a constitutional shortfall or legal error'
    will not suffice," Rivera v. Sessions, 
    903 F.3d 147
    , 150 (1st Cir.
    2018) (quoting Ayeni v. Holder, 
    617 F.3d 67
    , 71 (1st Cir. 2010)),
    - 18 -
    and "mere 'invocation of the Due Process Clause does not create a
    constitutional claim for the purpose of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D),'"
    
    id. (quoting Cruz-Orellana
    v. Sessions, 
    878 F.3d 1
    , 5 (1st Cir.
    2017)).
    Meanwhile, Gyamfi's reliance on Matter of J-J-, 21 I.
    &    N. Dec. 976, is misplaced and unpersuasive (and downright odd):
    the factors Gyamfi complains were ignored by the BIA (hardship to
    a petitioner and his/her family, a petitioner's criminal history,
    the severity and number of immigration missteps) nowhere appear in
    Matter of J-J-, and we are unable to find any authority (and Gyamfi
    points to no other) that establishes that the BIA's failure to
    mention these factors constitutes a violation of due process.13
    In sum, Gyamfi cannot prevail -- even if § 1252(a)(2)(D)
    were    to   provide   an   arguable   basis   for   jurisdiction   over
    13   We are baffled by Gyamfi's reading of Matter of J-J-. That
    case makes no mention of a due process limitation to the BIA's
    discretion to reopen removal proceedings, much less articulates a
    five-factor test for the supposed limitation.      Rather, it is
    evident from our own research that the factors Gyamfi recites are
    borrowed from a 2001 INS directive.     See Memorandum regarding
    Motions to Reopen for Consideration of Adjustment of Status from
    Bo Cooper, General Counsel for Immigration and Naturalization
    Service,     to    Regional     Counsel    (May     17,    2001),
    https://www.aila.org/infonet/ins-standards-to-join-a-motion-to-
    reopen. Far from governing the BIA's discretion to reopen a case
    sua sponte, the factors listed in this memorandum guide DHS's
    discretion in deciding whether to join a petitioner in her motion
    to reopen. 
    Id. This is
    not a matter of concern for the court,
    and that Gyamfi would lure us into this investigative rabbit hole
    at all is troublesome.
    - 19 -
    constitutional claims, Gyamfi has no colorable constitutional or
    legal claim on which we might base jurisdiction.
    CONCLUSION
    Gyamfi's   petition   for   review   is   denied   as   to   her
    challenge to the BIA's determination that the motion to reopen was
    untimely, and it is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as to her
    challenge to the BIA's decision to not exercise its authority to
    reopen sua sponte.
    - 20 -