Agyare v. Holder

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-1886
COLLINS KWAKWAH AGYARE,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: May 7, 2010 Decided: June 1, 2010
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronald D. Richey, LAW OFFICE OF RONALD D. RICHEY, Rockville,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General, Douglas E. Ginsburg, Assistant Director, Judith R.
O’Sullivan, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Collins Kwakwah Agyare, a native and citizen of Ghana,
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(b) (2006). We dismiss the
petition for review.
An alien is eligible for cancellation of removal as a
battered spouse if the alien: (1) has been battered or
subjected to extreme cruelty in the United States by a spouse or
parent who is a United States citizen or lawful permanent
resident; (2) has been continuously physically present in the
United States for at least three years; (3) has been a person of
good moral character during such period; (4) is not inadmissible
due to the commission of specified crimes; and (5) establishes
that removal would result in extreme hardship to the alien, his
child, or to his parent. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2) (2006);
Stephanovic v. Filip, 554 F.3d 673, 677 n.4 (7th Cir. 2009).
In an appeal of an administrative decision to grant or
deny cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b), this
court has jurisdiction only over constitutional claims and
questions of law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (D) (2006); see
Jean v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 475, 479-80 (4th Cir. 2006) (holding
that, under § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (D), court has no jurisdiction
2
over any aspects of denial of relief under § 1229b except
constitutional claims or questions of law); Obioha v. Gonzales,
431 F.3d 400, 405 (4th Cir. 2005) (“It is quite clear that the
gatekeeper provision bars our jurisdiction to review a decision
of the B[oard] to actually deny a petition for cancellation of
removal or the other enumerated forms of discretionary
relief.”). Whether an alien has proved “exceptional and extreme
hardship” under § 1229b is not a constitutional claim or
question of law. Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 37-40
(2d Cir. 2008); Martinez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1219,
1221-22 (11th Cir. 2006); 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). In fact, it is the precise
discretionary decision that Congress has shielded from review.
Zacarias-Velasquez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 429, 434 (8th Cir.
2007); Meraz-Reyes v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 842, 843 (8th Cir.
2006).
Therefore, we dismiss the petition for review from the
Board’s order finding Agyare failed to show his removal would
cause an extreme hardship to himself or family. 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