status. 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(l). Lee applied for hardship waivers under § 1186a(c)(4)(A), (B), and (C), which allow the Attorney General discretion to waive the joint filing requirement. Lee also applied for a misrepresentation waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(H). The immigration judge denied Lee’s request for relief. The Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirmed on appeal. Lee argues that the immigration judge and the Board erred by not properly determining eligibility before denying the waivers as a matter of discretion. This court does not have jurisdiction to review the merits of discretionary judgments, though we can review questions of law, including eligibility for such discretionary waivers. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Singh v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1190, 1197 (9th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). It is true that before an immigration
recognizing that whether a duty exists is a question of law for the courts holding that the transitional rules preclude direct judicial review of the bias discretionary determination of extreme hardship in suspension of deportation cases holding that such a duty exists holding that judicial review is available over the determination of whether extreme hardship exists though no jurisdiction exists to review the ultimate decision of whether to grant a waiver under  1186ac4a holding that no private right of action exists