UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-1543
DANILO JOSE ENRIQUEZ MEJIA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted: March 30, 2021 Decided: April 16, 2021
Before WILKINSON, KING, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Sam H. Hasan, HASAN LAW GROUP PLLC, Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner.
Jeffrey Bossert Clark, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation
Counsel, Robert Dale Tennyson, Jr., Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Danilo Jose Enrique Mejia, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for review
of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from the
Immigration Judge’s decision denying his applications for cancellation of removal and
withholding of removal. Because the agency denied cancellation of removal as a matter of
discretion and Mejia failed to raise any colorable legal or constitutional issues, we lack
jurisdiction to consider the claim on appeal. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (D);
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). As for withholding of removal, Mejia has not challenged the Board’s dispositive
finding that he failed to meet his burden of proof by sufficiently corroborating his assertion
that individuals affiliated with the government would seek to harm him in Nicaragua. See
Mulyani v. Holder, 771 F.3d 190, 198 (4th Cir. 2014) (“[A]n applicant alleging past
persecution must establish either that the government was responsible for the persecution
or that it was unable or unwilling to control the persecutors.”). He has therefore abandoned
on appeal any claims relevant to this dispositive finding. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A);
Suarez-Valenzuela v. Holder, 714 F.3d 241, 248-49 (4th Cir. 2013).
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
2