Jose Contreras-Carrillo v. Merrick Garland

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-1229
JOSE CONTRERAS-CARRILLO,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: September 29, 2021 Decided: October 26, 2021
Before MOTZ and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark J. Devine, Charleston, South Carolina, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Acting
Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, Remi Da Rocha-
Afodu, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jose Contreras-Carrillo, 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 decision denying his application for cancellation of removal under 8
U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). The denial of relief was based on the finding that Contreras-Carrillo
failed to show that his removal would be an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship
to his three citizen-sons. We review this determination as a mixed question of fact and
law. Gonzalez Galvan v. Garland, 6 F.4th 552, 559-60 (4th Cir. 2021). We have reviewed
the record and conclude that there is no error. We have considered Contreras-Carrillo’s
claim that his removal would violate his citizen-sons’ rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments and find this claim to be without merit. See Marin-Garcia v. Holder, 647
F.3d 666, 672 (7th Cir. 2011); Payne-Barahona v. Gonzales, 474 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 2007);
Gallanosa v. United States, 785 F.2d 116, 120 (4th Cir. 1986). Accordingly, we deny the
petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal questions
are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2