German Rocael Gonzalez Flores v. Eric Holder, Jr.


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A088-424-283 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998457692] [10-1403]

Download PDF
German Rocael Gonzalez Flores v. Eric Holder, Jr. Doc. 0 Case: 10-1403 Document: 27 Date Filed: 11/02/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1403 GERMAN ROCAEL GONZALEZ FLORES, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: October 4, 2010 Decided: November 2, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Arnedo S. Valera, LAW OFFICES OF VALERA & ASSOCIATES, Fairfax, Virginia, for Petitioner. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Blair T. O'Connor, Assistant Director, Joseph D. Hardy, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Case: 10-1403 Document: 27 Date Filed: 11/02/2010 Page: 2 PER CURIAM: German Rocael Gonzalez Flores, 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 "Denials of 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) relief," "no (2006), entitled have discretionary court shall jurisdiction to review any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section . . of . 1229b," which In is this the section the governing cancellation removal. case, immigration judge found, and the Board explicitly agreed, that Gonzalez Flores 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 Guatemala. conclude that this determination is clearly discretionary We 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. 2007); 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 Case: 10-1403 Document: 27 Date Filed: 11/02/2010 Page: 3 gatekeeper provision [of 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)] bars our jurisdiction to review a decision of the BIA to actually deny a petition concluded for that cancellation the issue of of removal."). hardship is Indeed, committed we to have agency Okpa v. discretion and thus is not subject to appellate review. INS, 266 F.3d 313, 317 (4th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review. * dispense with oral argument because the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DISMISSED We note that Gonzalez Flores 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 *

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?