Crimes of Moral Turpitude

The following discussion is limited to judicial review standards and restrictions related to criminal grounds of removal, and relief from removal based on those grounds, and does not analyze other aspects of judicial review.[222]

[222] One example of a non-criminal jurisdictional bar can be found at INA § 208(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3), barring judicial review of certain asylum-related issues. Ramadan v. Gonzalez, 427 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. Nov. 2, 2005), on rehearing, 479 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2007) (INA § 242(a)(2)(D), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) does not allow appellate review of factual issues or mixed questions of law and fact related to one-year asylum deadline).  See also Hanan v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 834 (8th Cir. 2006) (court lacks jurisdiction to review factual determination by immigration judge that noncitizen would be subject to torture if returned to Afghanistan, which is not a ‘constitutional claim or question of law’); Toro-Romero v. Ashcroft, 382 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. Aug. 30, 2004) (under INA § 242(a)(2)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), court of appeals is not barred from jurisdiction to review final removal order against noncitizen who has been ordered removed based on INA § 212(a)(2)(C), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii) false claim of citizenship).