Elina Erazo Alvarez v. Merrick Garland ( 2021 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-1818
ELINA ZALOME ERAZO ALVAREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted: May 27, 2021 Decided: June 25, 2021
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Khristina Siletskaya, SILETSKAYA IMMIGRATION LAW FIRM, Bluffton, South
Carolina, for Petitioner. Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Kiley
Kane, Senior Litigation Counsel, Rebecca Hoffberg Phillips, Office of Immigration
Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Elina Zalome Erazo Alvarez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review
of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the
Immigration Judge’s decision denying her application for special rule cancellation of
removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2). The Board found that Erazo Alvarez did not
establish eligibility for relief because she failed to demonstrate that she was battered or
subjected to extreme cruelty. We possess jurisdiction to review the Board’s decision only
to the extent Erazo Alvarez asserts questions of law and constitutional claims. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (D); Jean v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 475, 479-80 (4th Cir. 2006) (holding
that, under § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (D), Court has no jurisdiction over any aspects of denial of
relief under § 1229b except constitutional claims or questions of law). Erazo Alvarez’s
sole legal claim – that the Board applied the wrong legal standard in reviewing her appeal
– lacks merit. We do not have jurisdiction over her remaining claims, none of which
present questions of law or constitutional claims. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal questions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED IN PART
AND DISMISSED IN PART
2