UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1688
FE MAGTOTO TIATCO,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals. (A76-435-330)
Submitted: August 20, 2007 Decided: September 13, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed in part and denied in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Jim Tom Haynes, JIM TOM HAYNES, P.C., Washington, D.C., for
Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, M.
Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Gladys M. Steffens-
Guzman, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Fe Magtoto Tiatco, a native and citizen of the
Philippines, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) affirming the immigration judge’s
order denying cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C.A. § 1229b(b)
(West 2005 & Supp. 2007), and ordering Tiatco’s removal. We deny
the petition for review.
Under 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (West 2005), this
court has no jurisdiction to review “any judgment regarding the
granting of relief under section . . . 1229b . . . of this title.”
In view of these statutory limitations, we lack jurisdiction to
review the Board’s determination that Tiatco failed to establish
“exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to her mother. See
Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, __ F.3d __, __, 2007 WL 2189132, at *3-
*4 (2d Cir. 2007); 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). The petition for review is dismissed as to
this claim.
An exception to section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)’s jurisdictional
ban exists for “constitutional claims or questions of law,” 8
U.S.C.A. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (West 2005), “arising from the agency’s
decision to deny discretionary relief.” Jean v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d
475, 480 (4th Cir. 2006). Tiatco asserts that the immigration
judge’s denial of a continuance to allow her to arrange for her
- 2 -
mother’s presence at the hearing violated her constitutionally
protected due process rights. An alien must be given “an
opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful
manner, i.e., [to] receive a full and fair hearing on [her]
claims.” Rusu v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 321-22 (4th Cir. 2002). An
alien must establish not only that a violation occurred but also
that she suffered prejudice from the violation. Id. at 320.
Prejudice requires that the violation was likely to affect the
results of the hearing. Jean, 435 F.3d at 484. Having reviewed
the administrative record in this case, we conclude that Tiatco did
not establish that the immigration judge’s denial of a continuance
denied her due process. The petition for review is denied as to
this claim.
Accordingly, we dismiss in part and deny in part Tiatco’s
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 DISMISSED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART
- 3 -