top of page

Eleventh Circuit Reinforces Federal Courts’ Limited Role In Removal Proceedings

In Flores-Alonso v. U.S. Attorney General, noncitizen Esteban Flores-Alonso petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision to affirm the denial of Flores-Alonso’s request for cancellation of removal. The Eleventh Circuit dismissed the petition, explaining that judicial review of cancellation of removal decisions is “jurisdictionally limited to ‘constitutional claims or questions of law.’” In his petition, Flores-Alonso claimed the BIA committed legal error in rendering its decision and raised two arguments on appeal.

The Eleventh Circuit, however, found that Flores-Alonso’s arguments were not questions of law. Instead, the arguments were inherently factual. Because the federal courts are precluded from disturbing factual findings upheld by the BIA, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over Flores-Alonso’s appeal.

Courtney N. Pomeroy, Flores-Alonso v. Attorney General, 4 Cumb. L. Rev. Online 77 (2023).


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page