context: This argument is unavailing because Ramadan is not in tension with Fernandez. Ramadan did not change the legal landscape as to either constitutional claims (which could already be filed in this court under Fernandez) or as to non-constitutional challenges to the BIA's discretionary denials of motions to reopen (which still cannot be appealed to our court after Ramadan).
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 552 F.3d 980, 980-81
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that Ramadan is inapplicable to the " 'exceptional and extremely unusual hardship' standard" because it is "subjective" unlike the " 'changed circumstances' standard" at issue in Ramadan
citation_a.sentence: See Ramadan, 479 F.3d at 654 (holding that the REAL ID Act “does not restore jurisdiction over discretionary determinations”); see also Mendez-Castro, 552 F.3d at 980-81 (holding that Ramadan is inapplicable to the “ ‘exceptional and extremely unusual hardship’ standard” because it is “subjective” unlike the “ ‘changed circumstances’ standard” at issue in Ramadan).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 479 F.3d 654, 654
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that the REAL ID Act "does not restore jurisdiction over discretionary determinations"
citation_b.sentence: See Ramadan, 479 F.3d at 654 (holding that the REAL ID Act “does not restore jurisdiction over discretionary determinations”); see also Mendez-Castro, 552 F.3d at 980-81 (holding that Ramadan is inapplicable to the “ ‘exceptional and extremely unusual hardship’ standard” because it is “subjective” unlike the “ ‘changed circumstances’ standard” at issue in Ramadan).