9th Circuit finds no jurisdiction to review BIA's determination that cancellation hardship requirement not met
Immigrants' Rights Update, Vol. 17, No. 3, June 3, 2003

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that the Board of Immigration Appeals' determination that an applicant for non-lawful permanent resident cancellation of removal has failed to establish that his or her removal would result in "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" is a discretionary determination. The court therefore concluded that, on petition for review, it does not have jurisdiction over such decisions, because of section 242(a)(2)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. That provision, enacted as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), bars the court of appeals from reviewing discretionary judgments of the BIA. In so ruling, the court noted that the respondent in the case before it did not challenge any factual determinations made by the BIA, and therefore the court did not decide whether it would have "jurisdiction to review underlying, disputed factual determinations."

Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887 (9th Cir. 2003).