Osbeli Berduo-Deleon v. Attorney General United States

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 12-1841
___________
OSBELI BERDUO-DELEON,
a/k/a Osveli Berduo-Deleon,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Respondent
____________________________________
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(Agency No. A070-630-905)
Immigration Judge: Honorable Charles M. Honeyman
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
December 19, 2012
Before: SLOVITER, CHAGARES and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: December 20, 2012)
___________
OPINION
___________
PER CURIAM
Osbeli Berduo-Deleon petitions for review of a decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA). For the reasons below, we will deny the petition for review.
Berduo-Deleon, a native of Guatemala, entered the United States in 1990. In
2008, he was charged as removable as an alien present in the United States without being
admitted or paroled. Berduo-Deleon conceded removability and applied for cancellation
of removal. After a hearing, an Immigration Judge (IJ) denied his application because he
concluded that Berduo-Deleon had not shown that his removal would result in
exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relatives. The BIA agreed
with the IJ and dismissed Berduo-Deleon’s appeal. Berduo-Deleon filed a petition for
review.
We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We have jurisdiction to review
constitutional claims and questions of law but not factual or discretionary determinations
related to cancellation of removal. Pareja v. Att’y Gen., 615 F.3d 180, 186 (3d Cir.
2010). In order to qualify for cancellation of removal, Berduo-Leon needed to show,
inter alia, that his removal would cause “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to
his qualifying relatives. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(1)(D).
Berduo-Deleon argues that the Board did not consider the entire administrative
record and applied the wrong standard of review. He argues that his case is similar to
Matter of Recinas, 23 I. & N. Dec. 467 (BIA 2002), a case in which the requisite hardship
was established. However, in Matter of Recinas, the petitioner was a single parent and
sole source of support for six children who would accompany her if she were removed to
Mexico. Here, the BIA noted that Berduo-Deleon is not the sole source of support for his
five citizen children who would stay with their citizen mother in the United States. A.R.
2
at 4. To the extent that this argument raises an issue of law, the BIA did not err in its
application of Matter of Recinas. Likewise, the BIA did not err in rejecting Berduo-
Deleon’s arguments that his daughters would be exposed to adverse conditions in
Guatemala.
Berduo-Deleon also argues, without elaboration, that the BIA abused its discretion
in denying his request for relief. To the extent he is raising a claim of legal error, he has
given no explanation how he believes the Board erred.
For the above reasons, we will deny the petition for review.
3