Alpesh Patel v. Attorney General United States ( 2015 )

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_____________
No. 15-1626
_____________
ALPESH BHIKHABHAI PATEL,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent
_______________________
On Petition for Review from the Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA-1 No. A200-688-488
Immigration Judge: Steven A. Morley
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
October 5, 2015
Before: FUENTES, SMITH, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
(Filed: November 3, 2015)
_______________________
OPINION *
_______________________
SMITH, Circuit Judge.
Alpesh Patel is a native and citizen of India. After he was served with a notice to
appear charging him with being removable as an alien present in the United States
*
This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
without being admitted or paroled, see 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), Patel admitted the
charge and filed an application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(b)(1). The Immigration Judge (IJ) denied Patel’s application, concluding that
Patel failed to establish that his “removal would result in [an] exceptional and extremely
unusual hardship” to his son Taj, who is a citizen of the United States. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229b(b)(1)(D). The BIA dismissed Patel’s appeal.
This timely petition for review followed. The government seeks to dismiss,
asserting that we lack jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), which divests the
courts of appeals of jurisdiction over certain denials of discretionary relief. In Mendez-
Moranchel v. Ashcroft, 338 F.3d 176, 179 (3d Cir. 2003), we held that this statutory
provision “strips us of jurisdiction to review certain discretionary decisions” and that
“whether an alien meets the hardship requirement in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b is such a
discretionary judgment.” Id. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to review the “hardship”
determination by the IJ.
Patel asserts, however, that the IJ committed legal error in denying the application
by “completely disregard[ing] the credible testimony of a forensic psychologist,” and
substituting his own personal opinion. Appellant’s Br. at 6. We have jurisdiction under
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) to review whether the IJ applied the proper legal standards in
resolving Patel’s application for cancellation of removal. See Pareja v. Attorney
General, 615 F.3d 180, 188 (3d Cir. 2010). Nonetheless, there is no merit to Patel’s
2
argument, which is belied by the record. The IJ’s written decision fully recounted the
substance of the psychologist’s testimony, demonstrating that the IJ was well aware of
the psychologist’s opinion. Instead of substituting his opinion, as Patel advances, the IJ
set out three reasons, supported by the record, for refusing to accord the psychologist’s
opinion controlling weight. Because the IJ scrutinized the psychologist’s opinion and
explained why he discounted it, we reject Patel’s assertion that the IJ committed a legal
error requiring remand. Accordingly, we will deny Patel’s petition for review.
3