Nabor Gonzalez v. Merrick Garland ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1432 Doc: 20 Filed: 06/09/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1432
NABOR GONZALEZ GONZALEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: February 21, 2023 Decided: June 9, 2023
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Mark J. Devine, Charleston, South Carolina, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton,
Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Tim Ramnitz, Senior
Litigation Counsel, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1432 Doc: 20 Filed: 06/09/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Nabor Gonzalez Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration
judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1).
In denying cancellation of removal, the immigration judge found that Gonzalez failed to
show that his removal would cause an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship for his
United States citizen daughter. We review this determination as a mixed question of fact
and law. Gonzalez Galvan v. Garland, 6 F.4th 552, 560 (4th Cir. 2021).
We have reviewed the administrative record in conjunction with the arguments
advanced by Gonzalez and conclude there is no error in the agency’s dispositive hardship
determination. We also conclude that Gonzalez’s daughter was not deprived of any
constitutional rights due to the denial of Gonzalez’s application for cancellation of removal.
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2