UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1913
RODRIGO QUIJANO,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: April 20, 2016 Decided: May 17, 2016
Before WILKINSON and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sam H. Hasan, HASAN LAW GROUP, Falls Church, Virginia, for
Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Douglas Ginsburg, Assistant Director,
Stratton C. Strand, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Rodrigo Quijano, a native and citizen of Colombia,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the Immigration
Judge’s (IJ) 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 statutory section governing
cancellation of removal. In this case, the IJ found, and the
Board agreed, that Quijano failed to meet his burden of
establishing that his lawful permanent resident wife would
suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if Quijano is
removed to Colombia. We conclude that this determination is
clearly discretionary in nature, and we therefore lack
jurisdiction to review challenges to this finding absent a
colorable constitutional claim or question of law. 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 qualifying relative);
Obioha v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 400, 405 (4th Cir. 2005) (“It is
quite clear that the gatekeeper provision [of
2
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)] bars our jurisdiction to review a decision
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 have reviewed Quijano’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). See
Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358 (4th Cir. 2009) (“[A]bsent a
colorable constitutional claim or question of law, our review of
the issue is not authorized by § 1252(a)(2)(D).” (emphasis
added)).
Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review for lack of
jurisdiction. 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