UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-2328
JOSE RAUL VALERO ARREDONDO, a/k/a Jose Raul Arredondo,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: April 19, 2016 Decided: May 6, 2016
Before WYNN and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Japheth N. Matemu, MATEMU LAW OFFICE P.C., Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Song Park, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Surell Brady, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jose Raul Valero Arredondo, a native and citizen of Mexico,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen. 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. 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). Whether the alien has
established the requisite hardship for cancellation of removal
is a discretionary determination. See Romero-Torres v.
Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 888 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[A]n ‘exceptional
and extremely unusual hardship’ determination is a subjective,
discretionary judgment that has been carved out of our appellate
jurisdiction.”); see also Munis v. Holder, 720 F.3d 1293, 1295
(10th Cir. 2013) (hardship determination is an unreviewable
discretionary decision). 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).
2
The fact that Arredondo is seeking review of the Board’s
denial of his motion to reopen, as opposed to the initial denial
of his request for cancellation of removal, is of no
consequence. To determine whether we have jurisdiction over the
Board’s denial of Arredondo’s motion to reopen, “we must
consider the [Board]’s basis for the denial.” Sorcia, 643 F.3d
at 126. Where “the [Board] ma[k]e[s] a discretionary decision
on the merits of an enumerated provision [of
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)], the fact that it d[oes] so through denying
a motion to reopen d[oes] not save appellate jurisdiction.”
Obioha v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 400, 407 (4th Cir. 2005); accord
Alzainati v. Holder, 568 F.3d 844, 849 (10th Cir. 2009)
(“Because § 1252(a)(2)(B)(I) precludes our review of an
‘exceptional and extremely unusual hardship’ determination under
§ 1229b(b)(1)(D), it also precludes our jurisdiction to review
the [Board’s] denial of a motion to reopen because the alien
still has failed to show the requisite hardship.”).
Here, Arredondo submitted additional evidence with his
motion to reopen, including evidence of his father’s declining
health. The Board concluded that this new evidence, when
considered with Arredondo’s other evidence, did not establish
the requisite hardship. Because the Board clearly concluded
that Arredondo still failed to meet his burden of demonstrating
that his father would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual
3
hardship if Arredondo returns to Mexico, we find ourselves
without jurisdiction.
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
* We note that Arredondo 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) (2012).
4