Clarification of Jurisdictional Limits and Exhaustion Requirements in Cancellation of Removal Proceedings

Introduction

In Linares-Rivas v. Bondi, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit addressed two intertwined issues in immigration removal proceedings: (1) the unreviewability of the agency’s discretionary denial of cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1), and (2) the requirement that an alien exhaust procedural claims—such as ineffective assistance of counsel—before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Petitioner Rodrigo Linares-Rivas, a Mexican national admitted to the United States in 1996, sought cancellation of removal on grounds of “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his U.S. citizen children. After both an Immigration Judge (IJ) and the BIA denied relief—first as a discretionary matter and then on statutory eligibility—the Fifth Circuit was asked to review both the merits of hardship and moral-character findings and procedural due-process claims regarding counsel and continuance.

Summary of the Judgment

On June 3, 2025, the Fifth Circuit held that:

The court lacks jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) to review the discretionary denial of cancellation of removal.
Because the agency’s decision rested on an unreviewable exercise of discretion, arguments about statutory eligibility (hardship and moral character) could not be entertained.
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and a denied continuance raised for the first time on appeal to the Fifth Circuit were unexhausted and therefore waived under § 1252(d)(1).
The petition was therefore dismissed in part for lack of jurisdiction and denied in part with respect to unexhausted claims.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209 (2024): Clarified the two-step structure of cancellation relief—(1) statutory eligibility under § 1229b(b)(1), and (2) discretionary relief under § 1229a(c)(4)(A)—and held that discretionary decisions are unreviewable.
Perez v. Garland, 67 F.4th 254 (5th Cir. 2023): Reinforced Wilkinson by distinguishing between eligibility and discretionary determinations.
INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24 (1976): Established that agencies need not decide unnecessary issues when their conclusions are dispositive.
Matter of Lozada, 19 I. & N. Dec. 637 (BIA 1988): Prescribed procedural prerequisites for raising ineffective assistance of counsel claims.
Goonsuwan v. Ashcroft, 252 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2001) & Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132 (5th Cir. 2004): Held that procedural due-process claims are subject to the exhaustion requirement before the BIA.
Claudio v. Holder, 601 F.3d 316 (5th Cir. 2010) & Medina Carreon v. Garland, 71 F.4th 247 (5th Cir. 2023): Explained that an appellate brief to the BIA supersedes the notice of appeal and that issues not raised there are forfeited.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning proceeded in three steps:

Jurisdictional Bar on Discretionary Relief
Citing § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) and Wilkinson, the panel reaffirmed that federal courts may not review agency decisions “to grant or deny discretionary relief” such as cancellation of removal. Because the IJ’s denial rested principally on adverse discretionary factors—past DWIs, driving without a license, and lack of tax records—the court lacked jurisdiction to revisit those factual judgments or to reweigh the equities.
No Colorable Legal Question on Eligibility
Although Linares-Rivas challenged the agency’s evaluation of his “good moral character” and alleged hardship, these arguments implicated discretionary balancing, not pure questions of law. Under Wilkinson and Perez, only pure legal or constitutional claims survive § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)’s bar.
Exhaustion of Procedural Claims
Linares-Rivas argued that he was denied due process because the IJ refused to grant a continuance and improperly imposed the Lozada framework. But the court held that these procedural objections were not fairly presented in his BIA briefing. Under § 1252(d)(1) and controlling Fifth Circuit authority, such claims are forfeited if not properly exhausted before the BIA.

Impact

This decision has three significant effects on immigration practice in the Fifth Circuit:

It underscores that discretionary denials of cancellation of removal are effectively unassailable on appeal, even if they incorporate statutory eligibility findings.
It warns practitioners to raise all procedural-due-process claims, including ineffective assistance of counsel and requests for continuances, in the BIA appellate brief rather than merely in a notice of appeal.
It clarifies that challenges to the IJ’s application of Matter of Lozada must likewise be preserved and developed before the BIA to avoid forfeiture.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Discretionary vs. Eligibility Decision: Cancellation of removal involves (1) proving statutory eligibility (hardship, moral character, continuous presence) and then (2) persuading the agency to exercise its discretion favorably. Courts can review only eligibility issues, not discretionary judgments.
Jurisdictional Bar: Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), federal courts cannot review “any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section 1229b.” That includes denials of cancellation as a matter of discretion.
Exhaustion Requirement: 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) requires aliens to present issues to the BIA before seeking judicial review. Procedural claims—like a denial of continuance or counsel’s ineffectiveness—must be raised in the BIA brief, not just in the notice of appeal.
Matter of Lozada: To claim ineffective assistance of counsel, an alien must (1) show counsel’s errors, (2) inform counsel and afford a chance to respond, and (3) file an affidavit with the BIA—failing which the claim may be dismissed as procedurally deficient.

Conclusion

Linares-Rivas v. Bondi reaffirms the strict jurisdictional limits on appellate review of discretionary immigration relief and underscores the critical importance of procedural exhaustion before the BIA. By dismissing challenges to the discretionary denial of cancellation and denying unexhausted due-process claims, the Fifth Circuit sends a clear message: advocates must diligently present both eligibility arguments and procedural objections at the agency level. This ruling thus shapes the landscape of cancellation practice, tightening the procedural and substantive avenues for relief in removal proceedings.