## Facts

- Josefa Rosario, a citizen of the Dominican Republic, entered the United States in 1994 on a one-month tourist visa and overstayed.
- She married a U.S. citizen in 1996 and sought adjustment of status.
- Between June and September 1997, she alleged several incidents of physical abuse or intimidation, including grabbing, shaking, verbal insults, being thrown on a bed, demands for money, and threats to withdraw her green-card application.
- She did not seek medical care or contact law enforcement.
- Her adjustment application was denied as abandoned in 2000.
- In 2002, the government initiated removal proceedings; Rosario conceded removability.
- She applied for special rule cancellation of removal for abused spouses under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2).

## Issues

1. Whether the court of appeals has jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of special rule cancellation based on a finding that the applicant was not “battered or subjected to extreme cruelty” under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2).
2. Whether the petitioner raised a reviewable “constitutional claim or question of law” under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), or instead challenged an unreviewable discretionary and factual determination barred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B).

## Decision

- The court dismissed the petition for review for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The court held that the agency’s determination that Rosario was not “battered or subjected to extreme cruelty” was a discretionary, fact-intensive judgment insulated from review by § 1252(a)(2)(B).
- The court held that § 1252(a)(2)(D) did not restore jurisdiction because Rosario did not present a genuine constitutional claim or question of law.

## Legal Principles

- Federal courts lack jurisdiction to review “any judgment regarding the granting of relief” involving cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), subject to the limited carve-out in § 1252(a)(2)(D).
- Section 1252(a)(2)(D) permits review only of genuine constitutional claims or questions of law, not disagreements with the agency’s weighing of evidence or severity assessments.
- Whether conduct amounts to being “battered or subjected to extreme cruelty” for purposes of special rule cancellation under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2) is treated as a qualitative, discretionary determination based on the nature and severity of abuse.
- A petitioner cannot obtain judicial review by recharacterizing a factual or discretionary dispute as a legal or constitutional claim.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held it lacked jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of special rule cancellation because the “extreme cruelty” determination was discretionary and fact-bound, and the petition raised no true legal or constitutional issue that would trigger the statutory jurisdictional exception.


Rosario v. Holder, 627 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 2010)