UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1403
GERMAN ROCAEL GONZALEZ FLORES,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: October 4, 2010 Decided: November 2, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Arnedo S. Valera, LAW OFFICES OF VALERA & ASSOCIATES, Fairfax,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney
General, Blair T. O’Connor, Assistant Director, Joseph D. Hardy,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
German Rocael Gonzalez Flores, a native and citizen of
Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s denial of his application for cancellation
of removal. For the reasons set forth below, we dismiss the
petition for review.
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (2006), entitled
“Denials of discretionary relief,” “no court shall have
jurisdiction to review any judgment regarding the granting of
relief under section . . . 1229b,” which is the section
governing cancellation of removal. In this case, the
immigration judge found, and the Board explicitly agreed, that
Gonzalez Flores failed to meet his burden of establishing that
his United States citizen children would suffer exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship if he is returned to Guatemala. We
conclude that this determination is clearly discretionary in
nature, and we therefore lack jurisdiction to review challenges
to this finding. See, e.g., Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516
F.3d 35, 36 (2d Cir. 2007); Memije v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 1163,
1164 (9th Cir. 2007); 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); see also Obioha v. Gonzales, 431
F.3d 400, 405 (4th Cir. 2005) (“It is quite clear that the
2
gatekeeper provision [of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)] bars our
jurisdiction to review a decision of the BIA to actually deny a
petition for cancellation of removal.”). Indeed, we have
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).
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 the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED
*
We note that Gonzalez Flores raises no colorable questions
of law or constitutional claims that fall within the exception
set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2006) (stating that no
provision limiting judicial review “shall be construed as
precluding review of constitutional claims or questions of law
raised upon a petition for review filed with an appropriate
court of appeals”).
3