Joseph Arthur Coleman v. U.S. Attorney General

USCA11 Case: 26-10264 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 08/04/2026 Page: 1 of 3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 26-10264 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

JOSEPH AUGUSTUS ARTHUR COLEMAN,

Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

____________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A203-224-044 ____________________

Before BRANCH, LUCK, and KIDD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Joseph Augustus Arthur Coleman, a native and citizen of Ghana, petitions us for review of an order of the Board of Immi- gration Appeals (“BIA”) adopting and affirming the immigration

USCA11 Case: 26-10264 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 08/04/2026 Page: 2 of 3 2 Opinion of the Court 26-10264 judge’s (“IJ”) order denying Coleman’s application for cancellation of removal under Section 237(a)(1)(B) of the Immigration and Na- tionality Act. The government moves to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.

The Attorney General has the discretion to cancel re- moval of a non-permanent alien who is inadmissible or removable from the United States if the alien establishes, inter alia, that re- moval would result in “exceptional and extremely unusual hard- ship” to his citizen or permanent resident spouse, parent, or child. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). When an alien applies for cancellation of removal, an IJ conducts a two-step inquiry. Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. 209, 209 (2024). At step one, the IJ determines whether the alien “is eligible for cancellation of removal under the statutory cri- teria.” Id. If the IJ finds that the alien is eligible, she proceeds to step two, in which she “must then decide whether to exercise dis- cretion and grant relief.” Id.

We generally lack jurisdiction to review the denial of relief relating to cancellation of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). However, we retain jurisdiction to review constitutional claims or questions of law associated with a petition for review. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Patel v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 971 F.3d 1258, 1274-76 (11th Cir. 2020) (en banc). “[W]hen an IJ weighs . . . found facts and ap- plies the ‘exceptional and extremely unusual hardship’ stand- ard . . . the result is a mixed question of law and fact that is review- able under § 1252(a)(2)(D).” Wilkinson, 601 U.S. at 222. But “if the IJ decides a noncitizen is eligible for cancellation of removal at step

USCA11 Case: 26-10264 Document: 11-1 Date Filed: 08/04/2026 Page: 3 of 3 26-10264 Opinion of the Court 3 one, his step-two discretionary determination on whether or not to grant cancellation of removal in the particular case is not reviewa- ble as a question of law.” Id. at 225 n.4.

To invoke our jurisdiction, a petitioner must allege at least a “colorable” constitutional claim or question of law. Patel, 971 F.3d at 1275. But even when a petitioner presents a colorable legal chal- lenge to some determination, we will not address it if we lack ju- risdiction to review an independent, dispositive determination. See Malu v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 764 F.3d 1282, 1290-91 (11th Cir. 2014), abro- gated in part on other grounds by Santos-Zacaria v. Garland, 598 U.S. 411, 415-23 & n.2 (2023); Meridor v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 891 F.3d 1302, 1305 (11th Cir. 2018).

We lack jurisdiction over Coleman’s petition. Although the IJ found at step one that Coleman was statutorily ineligible for can- cellation of removal, she ruled that even if Coleman were eligible, she would nevertheless use her discretion to deny his application. The IJ’s alternative step-two ruling is an independent dispositive de- termination that we lack jurisdiction to review. See Wilkinson, 601 U.S. at 225 n.4; Malu, 764 F.3d at 1290-91; Meridor, 891 F.3d at 1305. We thus lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s step-one determination, even if Coleman presented a colorable question of law about that determination. See Malu, 764 F.3d at 1290-91; Meridor, 891 F.3d at 1305.

Accordingly, we GRANT the government’s motion and DISMISS the petition for lack of jurisdiction.