Rolando Vasquez v. Eric Holder, Jr. , 474 F. App'x 179 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1299
ROLANDO ISIDRO VASQUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: June 1, 2012 Decided: June 19, 2012
Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rolando Isidro Vasquez, Petitioner Pro Se. Channah Marti
Farber, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rolando Isidro Vasquez, a native and citizen of
Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s denial of his application for cancellation
of removal. * Because we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss the
petition for review.
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (2006), entitled
“Denials of discretionary relief,” “no court shall have
jurisdiction to review any judgment regarding the granting of
relief under section . . . 1229b,” which is the section
governing cancellation of removal. In this case, the
immigration judge found, and the Board explicitly agreed, that
Vasquez failed to meet his burden of establishing that his
United States citizen children would suffer exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship if he is returned to Guatemala. We
conclude that this determination is clearly discretionary in
nature, and we therefore lack jurisdiction to review challenges
*
We note that Vasquez was removed without notice to this
court on April 19, 2012, while his motion for stay was pending.
When the motion was filed on April 9, 2012, counsel for the
Office of Immigration Litigation informed this court that no
steps had been taken for Vasquez’s removal. Although the motion
for stay was subsequently denied on May 2, 2012, we are deeply
disappointed that Vasquez was removed prior to the motion being
ruled upon.
2
to this finding. See, e.g., Barco–Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516
F.3d 35, 36 (2d Cir. 2008); Memije v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 1163,
1164 (9th Cir. 2007); see also Obioha v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 400,
405 (4th Cir. 2005) (“It is quite clear that the gatekeeper
provision [of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)] bars our jurisdiction to
review a decision of the [Board] to actually deny a petition for
cancellation of removal.”). Indeed, we have concluded that the
issue of hardship is committed to agency discretion and thus is
not subject to appellate review. Okpa v. INS, 266 F.3d 313, 317
(4th Cir. 2001). We also lack jurisdiction to review the denial
of cancellation of removal as a matter of discretion. See
Bermudez v. Holder, 586 F.3d 1167, 1169 (9th Cir. 2009).
We note that Vasquez does not raise a colorable
question of law or a constitutional claim that falls within the
exception set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2006) (stating
that no provision limiting judicial review “shall be construed
as precluding review of constitutional claims or questions of
law raised upon a petition for review filed with an appropriate
court of appeals”).
While Vasquez argues that his prior convictions should
not have made him statutorily ineligible for cancellation of
removal, we note that the Board affirmed the denial of relief on
other grounds.
3
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED
4