USCA4 Appeal: 22-1063 Doc: 22 Filed: 11/08/2022 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1063
MARVIS ERLINDO MARTINEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: October 26, 2022 Decided: November 8, 2022
Before WYNN and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Arnedo S. Valera, LAW OFFICES OF VALERA & ASSOCIATES P.C.,
Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney
General, John S. Hogan, Assistant Director, Matthew A. Spurlock, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1063 Doc: 22 Filed: 11/08/2022 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Marvis Erlindo Martinez, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of
an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) adopting and affirming the
Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying Martinez’s application for cancellation of
removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). The IJ concluded that Martinez’s application failed
because he did not establish that his removal to Honduras would result in an exceptional
and extremely unusual hardship to his United States citizen son. We deny the petition for
review.
The Attorney General “‘may cancel removal’ of an applicant who meets four
statutory criteria: 1) that the applicant has been physically present in the United States for
at least ten continuous years, 2) that the applicant had been a person ‘of good moral
character’ during that ten-year period, 3) that the applicant had not committed certain
enumerated offenses, and 4) that the applicant ‘establishes that removal would result in
exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the [applicant’s citizen or lawful permanent
resident] spouse, parent, or child[ren].’” Gonzalez Galvan v. Garland, 6 F.4th 552, 557
(4th Cir. 2021) (alterations in original) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)).
In Gonzalez Galvan, we held that the IJ’s ruling that an applicant has not met the
exceptional and extremely unusual hardship requirement of § 1229b(b)(1) is a mixed
question of law and fact that we possess jurisdiction to review under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(a)(2)(D). Id. at 560. But in performing that review, we may not disturb “the IJ’s
factual findings related to the hardship determination,” and we assess only whether “the IJ
erred in holding that [the] evidence failed as a matter of law to satisfy the statutory standard
2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1063 Doc: 22 Filed: 11/08/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.” Id. at 561 (internal quotation marks
omitted). Our review of that legal question is de novo. Id.
After reviewing the record, we are satisfied that the IJ “applied the correct statutory
standard, considered all the evidence, and adequately explained the reasons for his ruling.”
Id. We therefore conclude that the IJ did not commit an error of law in denying Martinez’s
application for cancellation of removal.
Accordingly, we deny 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 DENIED
3