## Facts

- Wilfred Brentnol Johnson, a native and citizen of Guyana, entered the United States without inspection around March 1995.
- He married a U.S. citizen in February 2003; they had two children, and his spouse obtained approval of an I-130 petition.
- After a brief trip abroad, Johnson returned and was paroled into the United States in July 2005 as an applicant for lawful permanent residence.
- The marriage deteriorated; Johnson left the marital home, and his spouse withdrew the I-130, sought divorce, and obtained a restraining order.
- Immigration authorities took Johnson into custody and served a Notice to Appear charging him as removable for lacking valid entry documents.
- The Immigration Judge (IJ) found him removable as charged.
- Johnson sought cancellation of removal under the special rule for battered spouses (8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2)), alleging “extreme cruelty” based on his spouse’s allegedly false accusations in family-court filings and interference with access to the children; he also sought voluntary departure.
- The IJ denied battered-spouse cancellation and voluntary departure; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed without opinion.

## Issues

1. Whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction to review the denial of special-rule battered-spouse cancellation, including the agency’s determination that Johnson did not show “extreme cruelty” under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2).
2. Whether the court had jurisdiction to review the denial of voluntary departure.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit dismissed the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction.
- The court held that challenges to the agency’s “extreme cruelty” determination in this case were factual and discretionary, falling within the jurisdictional bar of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), and were not saved by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).
- The court held it likewise lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of voluntary departure, a discretionary form of relief insulated from review by the same jurisdiction-stripping provision.

## Legal Principles

- 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars judicial review of “any judgment regarding the granting of relief” for specified discretionary relief, including cancellation of removal and voluntary departure.
- 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) preserves appellate jurisdiction only for colorable constitutional claims or questions of law; disagreement with fact-finding, credibility determinations, or evidentiary weighing does not qualify.
- Whether alleged conduct constitutes “extreme cruelty” for special-rule battered-spouse cancellation can be treated as a fact-bound, discretionary eligibility determination when it turns on case-specific assessment of evidence.
- Denials of voluntary departure generally are unreviewable absent a genuine legal or constitutional challenge.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit dismissed Johnson’s petition because his arguments attacked the IJ’s fact-based and discretionary determinations regarding “extreme cruelty” and voluntary departure, and he did not present a reviewable constitutional claim or question of law under the statutory exception.


Johnson v. Att’y Gen., 602 F.3d 508 (3d Cir. 2010)