Usiel Roblero v. Jefferson Sessions III ( 2018 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-2397
USIEL ELIFAS DE LEON ROBLERO, a/k/a Amilcar Gonzalez Perez,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General of the United States,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: May 17, 2018 Decided: May 30, 2018
Before WYNN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark J. Devine, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Chad A. Readler, Acting
Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Nancy K. Canter,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Usiel Elifas De Leon Roblero, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to
reconsider its decision dismissing his appeal from the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of
his application for cancellation of removal. For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss
the petition for review.
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (2012), 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 IJ found, and the Board agreed, that Roblero 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 Mexico. We conclude that this
determination is clearly discretionary in nature, and we therefore lack jurisdiction to
review challenges to this finding absent a colorable constitutional claim or question of
law. See Sattani v. Holder, 749 F.3d 368, 372 (5th Cir. 2014) (finding no jurisdiction to
review determination that aliens failed to demonstrate requisite hardship to their U.S.
citizen son); 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.”); Okpa v. INS, 266
F.3d 313, 317 (4th Cir. 2001) (concluding, under transitional rules, that issue of hardship
is committed to agency discretion and is not subject to appellate review).
2
We have reviewed Roblero’s claims of error and conclude that he fails to raise a
colorable constitutional claim or question of law under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012).
See Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358 (4th Cir. 2009) (“[A]bsent a colorable
constitutional claim or question of law, our review of the issue is not authorized by
§ 1252(a)(2)(D).” (emphasis added)). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review for
lack of jurisdiction. 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 DISMISSED
3