UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1797
CHUKWUJINDU VICTOR MBAKPUO,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General of the United States;
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY,
Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: March 4, 2011 Decided: March 18, 2011
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Liam Ge, Columbia, Maryland, for Petitioner. Tony West,
Assistant Attorney General, Carl H. McIntyre, Jr., Assistant
Director, Francis W. Fraser, Office of Immigration Litigation,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondents.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Chukwujindu Victor Mbakpuo, a native and citizen of
Nigeria, petitions for review an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s orders denying his application for
cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b) (2006), the
application for voluntary departure and his motion to
reconsider. We dismiss the petition for review.
In an appeal of an administrative decision to grant or
deny cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C.A. § 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
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.”). Mbakpuo’s application was denied as a matter of
discretion and because he failed to show his removal would be an
exceptional and extreme hardship to his United States born
children. We conclude that Mbakpuo has failed to identify any
2
substantive error of law or constitutional claim regarding the
discretionary denial of relief. Thus, we do not have
jurisdiction to review the order.
With regard to voluntary departure, this court does
not have jurisdiction to review the denial of an order for
voluntary departure, except for claims involving a
constitutional error or an error of law. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1229c(f)(2006); Ngarurih v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 182, 193 (4th
Cir. 2004). Mbakpuo has failed to identify any such error.
Therefore, 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
3