context: The BIA determined that Petitioner's negative factors -- the fraud and misrepresentation contained in Petitioner's application -- outweighed the credible testimony from some of Petitioner's witnesses and the possibility of hardship should Petitioner be removed. The BIA concluded that Petitioner's longstanding history of intentionally misleading the immigration courts was so egregious that they easily outweighed the positive factors. Because the BIA's decision to deny Petitioner's adjustment of status application was discretionary and not based on statutory construction, we do not have jurisdiction to review the BIA's findings.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 453 F.3d 743, 748
citation_a.parenthetical: stating that since Petitioner's "claim relies on contesting ... factual determinations rather than on statutory construction or a constitutional claim, we are without jurisdiction to review the BIA's determination denying her asylum."
citation_a.sentence: Johns v. Holder, 678 F.3d, 404, 406 (6th Cir.2012) (noting that arguments that challenge “the Board’s assessment of the weight and credibility of the evidence [are] matters that the statute commits to the Attorney General’s ‘sole discretion’ ”); see also Almuhtaseb v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 743, 748 (6th Cir.2006) (stating that since Petitioner’s “claim relies on contesting ... factual determinations rather than on statutory construction or a constitutional claim, we are without jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination denying her asylum.”).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 678 F.3d 404, 406
citation_b.parenthetical: noting that arguments that challenge "the Board's assessment of the weight and credibility of the evidence [are] matters that the statute commits to the Attorney General's 'sole discretion' "
citation_b.sentence: Johns v. Holder, 678 F.3d, 404, 406 (6th Cir.2012) (noting that arguments that challenge “the Board’s assessment of the weight and credibility of the evidence [are] matters that the statute commits to the Attorney General’s ‘sole discretion’ ”); see also Almuhtaseb v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 743, 748 (6th Cir.2006) (stating that since Petitioner’s “claim relies on contesting ... factual determinations rather than on statutory construction or a constitutional claim, we are without jurisdiction to review the BIA’s determination denying her asylum.”).