Reviewing “Good Moral Character” Determinations in Immigration Appeals
Since the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, several courts of appeals have reexamined the scope of their jurisdiction in immigration appeals. Last week produced another example. In Hernandez v. Garland, the Sixth Circuit held that it could review “good moral character” determinations in immigration appeals, as those determinations involve a mixed question of law and fact.
The Hernandez Litigation
The petitioner in Hernandez was ordered deported to El Salvador. He eventually sought cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)—a discretionary form of relief that requires showing (among other things) that the petitioner has “good moral character.” Simplifying a bit, an immigration judge determined that the petitioner had not demonstrated sufficiently good moral character and denied relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld this determination. The petitioner then sought review in the Sixth Circuit.
Appellate Jurisdiction in Immigration Appeals
Appellate jurisdiction in immigration cases can get complicated. That’s because a some provisions of immigration law strip the courts of appeals of jurisdiction to review certain issues, while other provisions state that those courts retain jurisdiction over other issues. More specifically, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B) says (among other things) that appellate courts lack jurisdiction to review the denial of relief under a variety of statutes as well as almost every discretionary decision. But under § 1252(a)(2)(D), the courts of appeals retain jurisdiction to review “constitutional claims or questions of law raised upon a petition for review.”
Among the statutes listed in § 1252(a)(2)(B) is the above-mentioned cancellation of removal provision in § 1229b(b)(1). Until recently, the courts of appeals generally held that they lacked jurisdiction to review whether a petitioner satisfied the criteria for cancellation of removal, including whether the petitioner showed good moral character. Courts often said that these criteria were discretionary and thus beyond the scope of review.
But in Guerrero-Lasprilla, the Supreme Court held that courts of appeals can review the application of law to facts when hearing immigration appeals. This decision has caused several courts of appeals the rethink the scope of their jurisdiction over various determinations made in removal proceedings.
Of particular relevance to Hernandez, a split soon developed over one of the cancellation criteria—the requirement that removal “would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to the petitioner’s family members who are citizens or lawful permanent residents. (A recent cert petition asks the Supreme Court to resolve this split.) And the Sixth Circuit took sides in that split: in Singh v. Rosen, the Sixth Circuit read read Guerrero-Lasprilla to mean that it could review hardship determinations in immigration appeals.
Jurisdiction Over Good-Moral-Character Determinations
In Hernandez, the Sixth Circuit extended Singh’s reasoning to the good-moral-character determination. Like the hardship requirement, the good-moral-character requirement is not written in terms of discretion. Also, other determinations of moral character in the immigration laws are not discretionary. And however malleable the standard might be, that indeterminacy does not make the standard discretionary.
The good-moral-character determination thus involved application of a legal standard to historical facts. It was accordingly within the Sixth Circuit’s jurisdiction.
One last note: in so holding, the Sixth Circuit joined the Eighth Circuit. I’m not aware of any other courts that have addressed this issue after Guerrero-Lasprilla.
Hernandez v. Garland, 2023 WL 1776586 (6th Cir. Feb. 6, 2023), available at the Sixth Circuit and Westlaw
Final Decisions PLLC is an appellate boutique and consultancy that focuses on federal appellate jurisdiction. We partner with lawyers facing appellate-jurisdiction issues, working as consultants or co-counsel to achieve positive outcomes on appeal. Contact us to learn how we can work together.
Learn More ContactRelated Posts
In Shaiban v. Jaddou, the Fourth Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of an immigrant’s application for permanent residence under 8 U.S.C. § 1159(b). Under 18 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), courts lack jurisdiction to review certain discretionary decisions in the immigration context. And the government has discretion when it comes to adjusting an asylee’s […]
Continue reading....
In Wilkinson v. Garland, the Supreme Court held that courts of appeals could review whether an immigration petitioner had shown the hardship necessary to be eligible for cancellation of removal. The majority thought that this holding was a straightforward extension of 2020’s Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr. But several justices doubted that Congress intended for such a […]
Continue reading....
Immigration law generally strips the courts of appeals of jurisdiction to review a variety of factual and discretionary issues. But a savings clause preserves jurisdiction to review legal and constitutional issues. And in 2020’s Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, the Supreme Court held that appellate jurisdiction exists to review mixed questions of law and fact—i.e., the application […]
Continue reading....
Immigration law generally strips the courts of appeals of jurisdiction to review a variety of decisions made in immigration proceedings. A savings clause adds that they retain jurisdiction to review legal and constitutional issues. Until recently, most (if not all) courts of appeals broadly read the jurisdiction-stripping provisions to bar appellate review in a variety […]
Continue reading....
The appellate-jurisdiction provisions of immigration law can get complicated. The law generally strips the courts of appeals of jurisdiction to review a variety of issues. But a savings clause adds that they retain jurisdiction to review legal and constitutional issues. And in last year’s Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, the Supreme Court held that appellate jurisdiction exists […]
Continue reading....Recent Posts
Sometimes a district court doesn’t resolve all the claims in an action. The district court might overlook one of a plaintiff’s many claims. Or the district court might forget about counterclaims or crossclaims. Regardless of what happened, the district court has explicitly resolved only part of an action. If the district court thereafter enters judgment […]
Continue reading....
In City of Martinsville v. Express Scripts, Inc., a divided Fourth Circuit held that a court must stay proceedings—and not process a remand order—if the defendant appeals before the district court can send the remand order to the state court. The majority thought that the rule of Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co.—particularly as the […]
Continue reading....
Perlman Appeals in the Grand Jury Context In In re Grand Jury Subpoeans Dated Sep. 13, 2023, the Second Circuit held that the target of a grand jury investigation could appeal an order directing the target’s attorneys to disclose documents over a claim of attorney-client privilege. The order was appealable via the Perlman doctrine, which generally […]
Continue reading....
In Fleming v. United States, the Eleventh Circuit became the fifth court of appeals to reject pure Bivens appeals. The court held that federal officials cannot immediately appeal the Bivens question without also appealing the denial of qualified immunity. Unlike some of the prior decisions, this one was unanimous. And it puts the government’s record […]
Continue reading....
Last month produced decisions involving a variety of appellate-jurisdiction issues. The Fifth Circuit decertified a § 1292(b) appeal. Judge Pillard of the D.C. Circuit explained that appellate “standing” does not require re-establishing standing in the court of appeals. The Sixth Circuit said that qualified immunity and an action’s merits are intertwined, which suggests (perhaps unintentionally) […]
Continue reading....