Domingo Alencastro v. Eric Holder, Jr.

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-1938
DOMINGO GERMAN ALENCASTRO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: January 14, 2014 Decided: January 29, 2014
Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
H. Glenn Fogle, Jr., THE FOGLE LAW FIRM, LLC, Atlanta, Georgia,
for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General,
Douglas E. Ginsburg, Assistant Director, Franklin M. Johnson,
Jr., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Domingo German Alencastro, a native and citizen of
Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s order denying his application for
cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b (2012).
We dismiss the petition for review.
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (2012), “no court
shall have jurisdiction to review . . . any judgment regarding
the granting of relief under section . . . 1229b.” See
Sorcia v. Holder, 643 F.3d 117, 124-25 (4th Cir. 2011) (finding
no jurisdiction to review discretionary denial of cancellation
of removal absent constitutional claim or question of law).
Here, the immigration judge found, and the Board agreed, that
Alencastro failed to meet his burden of establishing that his
United States citizen father and daughter would suffer
exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if he is removed to
Mexico.
“[A]n ‘exceptional and extremely unusual hardship’
determination is a subjective, discretionary judgment that has
been carved out of our appellate jurisdiction.”
Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 888 (9th Cir. 2003);
see, e.g., Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 36 (2d Cir.
2008); Memije v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 1163, 1164 (9th Cir. 2007);
2
Martinez v. U.S. Att’y. Gen., 446 F.3d 1219, 1221-22 (11th Cir.
2006); Meraz-Reyes v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 842, 843 (8th Cir.
2006) (per curiam); see also 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.”). Indeed, this court has concluded
that the issue of hardship is committed to agency discretion and
thus is not subject to appellate review. Okpa v. INS, 266 F.3d
313, 317 (4th Cir. 2001). Nevertheless, this court retains
jurisdiction to review colorable constitutional claims and
questions of law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Gomis v. Holder,
571 F.3d 353, 358 (4th Cir. 2009).
We have reviewed Alencastro’s claims of error and
conclude that he fails to raise a constitutional claim or a
question of law. 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
PETITION DISMISSED
3