2,415 bytes added
, 02:12, September 8, 2007
'''Withdrawal of jurisdiction''' refers to the power of [[Congress]] to limit the authority of [[federal]] [[court]]s to hear disputes over certain issues.
For example, [[Congress]] precluded [[court]]s from reviewing a challenge brought by "an alien who is removable by reason of having committed" an aggravated felony, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), or a challenge to the agency's denial of discretionary relief, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). See also ''Martinez-Maldonado v. Gonzales'', 437 F.3d 679, 683 (7th Cir. 2006) ("[W]e lack jurisdiction over motions to reopen and reconsider in cases where we lack jurisdiction to review the underlying order."); ''Patel v. U.S. Att'y Gen.'', 334 F.3d 1259, 1262 (11th Cir. 2003) (When a jurisdiction-stripping provision deprives the court of jurisdiction over the underlying order, "it strips us of jurisdiction to entertain an attack on that order mounted through filing of a motion to reopen."); ''Sarmadi v. INS'', 121 F.3d 1319, 1322 (9th Cir. 1997) ("[W]here Congress explicitly withdraws our jurisdiction to review a final order of deportation, our authority to review motions to reconsider or to reopen deportation proceedings is thereby likewise withdrawn.").
However, the jurisdiction-stripping provisions on which the government relies are both subject to the exception set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), which restores our jurisdiction to review "constitutional claims or questions of law." ''See, e.g., Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep't of Justice'', 471 F.3d 315, 324 (2d Cir. 2006). As we explained in ''Xiao Ji Chen'', we have "not determine[d] the precise outer limits of the term 'questions of law.'" ''Id.'' at 328. We have, however, suggested that a question of law arises "where a discretionary decision is argued to be an abuse of discretion because it was ... based on a legally erroneous standard." ''Id.'' at 329. We have also indicated that a "question of law" might "arise for example in fact-finding which is flawed by an error of law, such as might arise where the IJ states that his decision was based on petitioner's failure to testify to some pertinent fact when the record of the hearing reveals unambiguously that the petitioner did testify to that fact." ''Id.'' (citing ''Tian-Yong Chen v. INS'', 359 F.3d 121, 127 (2d Cir. 2004)).
[[Category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
[[Category:Circuit Cases]]
[[Category:jurisdiction]]