Whether the court had jurisdiction to review the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) reversal of the immigration judge’s (IJ) grant of cancellation of removal; 8 USC §§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) & (D); Denial of petitioner’s motion to reconsider or reopen; Failure to preserve a challenge to the IJ’s removability determination; Whether the BIA had a duty to determine his removability

The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary denial of petitioner-Dodaj’s application for cancellation of removal and that he waived his challenges to removability by not appealing the IJ’s ruling to the BIA. Dodaj was ordered removed to Albania after he added convictions for a firearm offense and two crimes involving moral turpitude to his extensive criminal record. The IJ ruled that Dodaj was removable based on his criminal record, but later cancelled his removal based on “the hardships that his family would face if he was removed.” The Department of Homeland Security appealed, and the BIA reversed. It then denied his motion to reconsider and reopen. In petitioning for review, Dodaj argued that the BIA erred as to both the denial of cancellation of removal and the denial of his reconsideration motion. The court first noted that it lacks jurisdiction to review judgments as to discretionary cancellation of removal, subject to the exception in § 1252(a)(2)(D), which provides review only to the extent that a petitioner asserts that the BIA “misinterpreted or misapplied the law.” The court considered Dodaj’s various arguments and concluded that they rested on disagreements about how the BIA exercised its discretion, leaving it without jurisdiction to review the cancellation of removal. While it had jurisdiction to consider the denial of his motion to reconsider or reopen, it concluded that his real dispute was not with the BIA’s denial of relief from removability but rather the IJ’s initial finding of removability, and he failed to preserve that claim when he did not appeal it. It also held that the BIA had no duty to independently determine his removability. The court noted that “he initially challenged his removability and then, on appeal, requested summary affirmance of the IJ decision finding him removable. That waiver dooms his petition.” Both petitions for review were denied.