Barajas

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I concur in the disposition except that I would dismiss the petition for review of the motion to reconsider for lack of jurisdiction. We must review only the IJ’s order here because “the BIA [did] not perform an independent review of the IJ’s decision and instead defer[red] to the IJ’s exercise of his ... discretion.” Campos-Granillo v. INS, 12 F.3d 849, 852 (9th Cir.1993). “Under [ 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(B)(i)], we lack jurisdiction to review discretionary decisions in the cancellation of removal context.” Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1001, 1005 (9th Cir.2003). Here, although the IJ erred by finding Flores Barajas fit within a per se category of aliens not to have good moral character, the IJ also recognized he had discretion to arrive at the same result by exercising his discretion. See Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir.1997) (“Apart from the per se categories, ... whether an alien has good moral character is an inquiry appropriate for the Attorney General’s discretion.”). Therefore, I would dismiss Flores Barajas’s petition to review her motion to reconsider because we lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s exercise of…

*243 MEMORANDUM **

Teresa Flores Barajas petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA’s) denial of her motion to reconsider its previous summary affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ’s) order denying cancellation of removal (Case No. 04-70866). She also seeks review of the BIA’s denial of her motion to reopen so she could apply for asylum based upon changed circumstances (Case No. 04-75596). Finally, Flores Barajas contends that she was denied due process of law by the IJ (Case No. 04-70866).

We find it clear that the denial of relief underlying the motion to reconsider was nondiscretionary, for the IJ relied on the petitioner’s false claim to U.S. citizenship and stated that, under 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (f), “a person shall not be found to be a person of good moral character if they make a false claim to U.S. citizenship.” We therefore have jurisdiction to review whether the BIA abused its discretion in denying the motion to reconsider. See Gomez-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 893 F.3d 882 , 884 (9th Cir.2005).

As both parties acknowledge, the IJ’s reading of § 1101(f) is patently wrong: the section’s only mention of false citizenship claims describes a certain context in…