UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1541
OBAFEMI OLUSEUN OPESANMI,
Petitioner,
versus
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (A23-587-344)
Submitted: December 8, 2003 Decided: January 13, 2004
Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Winston W. Tsai, Bethesda, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D.
Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Richard M. Evans, Assistant
Director, Carolyn M. Piccotti, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Obafemi Oluseun Opesanmi, a native and citizen of
Nigeria, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming the immigration judge’s
denial of his application for cancellation of removal.
Opesanmi first contends that the immigration judge erred
in denying his application for cancellation of removal on the
ground that he failed to demonstrate that his removal would result
in “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his family. See
8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) (2000) (setting forth requirements for
cancellation of removal). Because the immigration judge’s hardship
determination is discretionary in nature, we find that we lack
jurisdiction to consider this claim. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (2000); Mendez-Moranchel v. Ashcroft, 338 F.3d
176, 179 (3d Cir. 2003); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887,
888 (9th Cir. 2003); Okpa v. INS, 266 F.3d 313, 317 (4th Cir.
2001).
Opesanmi also contends that the Board’s decision to adopt
and affirm the immigration judge’s decision on the reasoning of the
immigration judge violated his right to due process of law. As
Opesanmi fails to establish that he was prejudiced by the Board’s
decision to affirm on the reasoning of the immigration judge, see
Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 324-25 (4th Cir. 2002), we find that he
is not entitled to relief on this claim.
- 2 -
Accordingly, we deny 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 DENIED
- 3 -