UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-1630
ALVARO EZEQUIEL RAMIREZ CASTANEDA, a/k/a Avardo Ramirez, a/k/a
Alvaro Castaneda Ramirez,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: November 30, 2017 Decided: December 13, 2017
Before KING, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Fernando A. Nuñez, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readler, Acting
Assistant Attorney General, John S. Hogan, Assistant Director, Mona Maria Yousif,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Alvaro Ezequiel Ramirez Castaneda, a native and citizen of Mexico, 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 section governing cancellation of removal.
In this case, the IJ found, and the Board agreed, that Ramirez Castaneda failed to meet his
burden of establishing that his United States citizen children would suffer exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship if he is returned to Mexico. 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 their U.S.
citizen son); Obioha v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 400, 405 (4th Cir. 2005) (“It is quite clear that
the 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.”); 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 Ramirez Castaneda’s claims of error and conclude that he fails
to raise a colorable constitutional claim or question of law under 8 U.S.C.
2
§ 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