UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1562
J.A.,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: March 8, 2016 Decided: April 1, 2016
Before KING, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
W. Rob Heroy, GOODMAN, CARR PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Anthony P. Nicastro, Acting Assistant
Director, Tracey N. McDonald, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
J.A., 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.
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 agency found that
J.A. failed to establish that he had been a person of good moral
character for the requisite statutory period or that he merited
a grant of cancellation of removal as a matter of discretion.
We conclude that these determinations are clearly discretionary
in nature, and we therefore lack jurisdiction to review
challenges to the agency’s denial of relief absent a colorable
constitutional claim or question of law.
We have reviewed J.A.’s claims of error and conclude that
he fails to raise a colorable constitutional claim or question
of law under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012). We therefore
dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED
3