Tiatco v. Gonzales , 247 F. App'x 451 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-1688
    FE MAGTOTO TIATCO,
    Petitioner,
    versus
    ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals. (A76-435-330)
    Submitted:   August 20, 2007            Decided:   September 13, 2007
    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per
    curiam opinion.
    Jim Tom Haynes, JIM TOM HAYNES, P.C., Washington, D.C., for
    Petitioner.   Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M.
    Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Gladys M. Steffens-
    Guzman, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Fe   Magtoto    Tiatco,   a   native   and   citizen   of   the
    Philippines, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of
    Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming the immigration judge’s
    order denying cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C.A. § 1229b(b)
    (West 2005 & Supp. 2007), and ordering Tiatco’s removal.         We deny
    the petition for review.
    Under 
    8 U.S.C.A. § 1252
    (a)(2)(B)(i) (West 2005), this
    court has no jurisdiction to review “any judgment regarding the
    granting of relief under section . . . 1229b . . . of this title.”
    In view of these statutory limitations, we lack jurisdiction to
    review the Board’s determination that Tiatco failed to establish
    “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to her mother.           See
    Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, __ F.3d __, __, 
    2007 WL 2189132
    , at *3-
    *4 (2d Cir. 2007); Martinez-Maldonado v. Gonzales, 
    437 F.3d 679
    ,
    682 (7th Cir. 2006); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 
    424 F.3d 926
    , 929-
    30 (9th Cir. 2005).      The petition for review is dismissed as to
    this claim.
    An exception to section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)’s jurisdictional
    ban exists for “constitutional claims or questions of law,” 
    8 U.S.C.A. § 1252
    (a)(2)(D) (West 2005), “arising from the agency’s
    decision to deny discretionary relief.” Jean v. Gonzales, 
    435 F.3d 475
    , 480 (4th Cir. 2006).      Tiatco asserts that the immigration
    judge’s denial of a continuance to allow her to arrange for her
    - 2 -
    mother’s presence at the hearing violated her constitutionally
    protected     due   process   rights.       An   alien   must    be   given   “an
    opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful
    manner, i.e., [to] receive a full and fair hearing on [her]
    claims.”      Rusu v. INS, 
    296 F.3d 316
    , 321-22 (4th Cir. 2002).               An
    alien must establish not only that a violation occurred but also
    that she suffered prejudice from the violation.                    
    Id. at 320
    .
    Prejudice requires that the violation was likely to affect the
    results of the hearing.        Jean, 
    435 F.3d at 484
    .           Having reviewed
    the administrative record in this case, we conclude that Tiatco did
    not establish that the immigration judge’s denial of a continuance
    denied her due process.        The petition for review is denied as to
    this claim.
    Accordingly, we dismiss in part and deny in part Tiatco’s
    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 IN PART
    AND DENIED IN PART
    - 3 -