UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1728
NICOLAS MORALES,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: March 6, 2012 Decided: March 15, 2012
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
H. Glenn Fogle, Jr., THE FOGLE LAW FIRM, LLC, Atlanta, Georgia,
for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Keith I.
McManus, Senior Litigation Counsel, Matt A. Crapo, Trial
Attorney, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Office of
Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nicolas Morales, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
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) (2006), 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
Morales failed to meet his burden of establishing that his two
United States citizen children would suffer exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship if he is returned to Guatemala. We
conclude that this determination is clearly discretionary in
nature, and we therefore lack jurisdiction to review challenges
to this finding. See, e.g., Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516
F.3d 35, 36 (2d Cir. 2008); Memije v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 1163,
1164 (9th Cir. 2007); Martinez v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d
1219, 1221-22 (11th Cir. 2006); Meraz-Reyes v. Gonzales, 436
F.3d 842, 843 (8th Cir. 2006); see also Obioha v. Gonzales, 431
F.3d 400, 405 (4th Cir. 2005) (“It is quite clear that the
2
gatekeeper provision [of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)] bars our
jurisdiction to review a decision of the [Board] to actually
deny a petition for cancellation of removal.”). 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).
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 the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DISMISSED
∗
We note that Morales 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) (2006) (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”).
3