UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2079
YU HUA ZHENG,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: February 18, 2014 Decided: February 25, 2014
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Zhiyuan Qian, LAW OFFICES OF GERALD KARIKARI, P.C., New York,
New York, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney
General, William C. Peachey, Assistant Director, Jonathan
Robbins, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Yu Hua Zheng, a native and citizen of the People’s
Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the
immigration judge’s order denying his application for
cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b (2012). We
dismiss the petition for review.
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (2012), “no court
shall have jurisdiction to review . . . any judgment regarding
the granting of relief under section . . . 1229b.” See
Sorcia v. Holder, 643 F.3d 117, 124-25 (4th Cir. 2011) (finding
no jurisdiction to review discretionary denial of cancellation
of removal absent constitutional claim or question of law).
Here, the immigration judge found, and the Board
agreed, that Zheng failed to meet his burden of establishing
that his United States citizen wife and two children would
suffer an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if he is
removed to China.
“[A]n ‘exceptional and extremely unusual hardship’
determination is a subjective, discretionary judgment that has
been carved out of our appellate jurisdiction.” Romero-
Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 888 (9th Cir. 2003); see,
e.g., Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 36 (2d Cir.
2008); Memije v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 1163, 1164 (9th Cir. 2007);
2
Martinez v. Attorney Gen., 446 F.3d 1219, 1221-22 (11th Cir.
2006); see also Obioha v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 400, 405 (4th Cir.
2005) (“It is quite clear that the gatekeeper provision [of
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)] bars our jurisdiction to review a decision
of the [Board] to actually deny a petition for cancellation of
removal.”). Indeed, this court has 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). Nevertheless, we retain jurisdiction to review
colorable constitutional claims and questions of law. 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(D); Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358 (4th Cir.
2009).
We have reviewed Zheng’s claims of error and conclude
that he fails to raise a constitutional claim or a question of
law regarding the dispositive finding that he did not establish
that his removal would be an exceptional and extremely unusual
hardship. 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
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED
3