UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1354
ROBERTO CARLOS BOTEO-PORTILLO,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: November 9, 2015 Decided: November 23, 2015
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed in part, denied in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Arlington,
Virginia, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Blair T. O’Connor, Assistant
Director, Briena L. Strippoli, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Roberto Carlos Boteo-Portillo, a native and citizen of El
Salvador, 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 in part and deny the petition in part.
Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (2012), 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 Boteo-Portillo
failed to meet his burden of establishing that his three United
States citizen children would suffer exceptional and extremely
unusual hardship if he is returned to El Salvador. We conclude
that this determination is clearly discretionary in nature, and
we therefore lack jurisdiction to review challenges to this
finding. See Sattani v. Holder, 749 F.3d 368, 372 (5th Cir.
2014) (finding no jurisdiction to review determination that
aliens failed to demonstrate requisite hardship to their U.S.
citizen son); 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
2
of the [Board] to actually deny a petition for cancellation of
removal.”); Okpa v. INS, 266 F.3d 313, 317 (4th Cir. 2001)
(concluding, under transitional rules, that issue of hardship is
committed to agency discretion and is not subject to appellate
review). We therefore dismiss the petition for review in part.
We retain jurisdiction to consider Boteo-Portillo’s
argument that issues with the video teleconferencing feed during
his immigration hearing violated his rights to due process. See
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012) (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”). However, because Boteo-Portillo failed to
demonstrate the requisite prejudice before the Board, see Rusu
v. INS, 296 F.3d 316, 320-22 (4th Cir. 2002), we deny this
portion of the petition for review for the reasons stated by the
Board. See In re: Boteo-Portillo (B.I.A. Mar. 19, 2015).
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 IN PART;
DENIED IN PART
3