Ssekamwa v. Ashcroft , 114 F. App'x 588 ( 2004 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-1732
PAULO JAMES SSEKAMWA; JACKIE SARAH MATOVU,
Petitioners,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A70-306-640; A78-234-494)
Submitted: November 17, 2004 Decided: December 13, 2004
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James T. Reynolds, PAUL SHEARMAN ALLEN & ASSOCIATES, Washington,
D.C., for Petitioners. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Carol
Federighi, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Paulo James Ssekamwa and Jackie Sarah Matovu, natives and
citizens of Uganda, petition for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) order dismissing the appeal from the denial of a
motion to reconsider or reopen. The Petitioners sought to reopen
the immigration judge’s decision denying their application for
cancellation of removal. We dismiss the appeal.
The Attorney General may cancel removal of an alien from
the United States if the alien: (1) has been physically present in
the United States for a continuous period of not less than ten
years immediately preceding the date of such application; (2) has
been a person of good moral character during this period; (3) has
not been convicted of certain enumerated offenses; and
(4) establishes that removal would result in “exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship” to the alien’s spouse, parent, or
child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) (2000).
The immigration judge denied the application after finding Ssekamwa
failed to demonstrate his and his wife’s removal would result in
exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to their daughter who
was born in the United States. The Petitioners filed a motion to
reopen or reconsider submitting evidence regarding their daughter’s
health. The motion was denied. On appeal, the Board found the
- 2 -
Petitioners failed to show an exceptional and extremely unusual
hardship with respect to their daughter.
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (2000), “no court shall
have jurisdiction to review any judgment regarding the granting of
relief under section . . . 1229b,” cancellation of removal. We are
without jurisdiction to review the Board’s finding that the
Petitioners failed to show an exceptional and extremely unusual
hardship.
We have not considered the new evidence the Petitioners
submitted to this Court in the joint appendix. Our review is
limited to the administrative record. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A)
(2000).
We find the Petitioners’ argument that the appeal from
the immigration judge’s denial of the motion to reopen and
reconsider was also timely as to the decision denying asylum,
withholding of removal and cancellation of removal is without
merit. We are without jurisdiction to review the immigration
judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal and cancellation
of removal.
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
- 3 -