10-1618 Wroblewska v. Holder

Listen to this article

Immigration
Adjustment of status; jurisdiction

The court lacks jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary decision to deny adjustment of status.

“The agency’s evaluation of the equities is not particularly persuasive. Were we in the IJ’s shoes, faced with the government’s assertion that an alien had bribed a federal immigration official, we would demand more than weak circumstantial evidence to support that allegation. It is especially troubling that the government purported to have a video recording of the entire transaction, but then it never produced any such thing. With a swearing match on the stand and an objective record of the transaction available, it is baffling why the agency would not have been interested in seeing what actually had occurred at the meeting between Wroblewska and Robinson. In light of the government’s weak evidence of bribery and Wroblewska’s happy marriage and fruitful participation in the community, we might have weighed the equities differently than the agency. But that is not our role. We lack jurisdiction to review a variety of agency decisions denying discretionary relief, including an IJ’s decision to deny an application for adjustment of status. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (barring review of decisions made pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1255, among other provisions); Pawlowska, 623 F.3d at 1141 & n.4 (explaining that the Court’s decision in Kucana v. Holder, 130 S. Ct. 827 (2010), does not affect this jurisdictional bar). The IJ’s view of Wroblewska’s credibility and his balancing of the equities must therefore stand undisturbed.”

Petition Denied.

10-1618 Wroblewska v. Holder

Petition for Review from an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals, Wood, J.

Full Text