Fray Jimenez-Garcia v. Loretta Lynch


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A088-237-928. Copies to all parties and the agency. [999804225]. [15-1765]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-1765 Doc: 21 Filed: 04/26/2016 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1765 FRAY LUBIAN JIMENEZ-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: February 23, 2016 Decided: April 26, 2016 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Efrain Alsina, Orlando, Florida, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Leslie McKay, Assistant Director, Christopher Buchanan, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-1765 Doc: 21 Filed: 04/26/2016 Pg: 2 of 4 PER CURIAM: Fray Colombia, Lubian Jimenez-Garcia, petitions for review a of native an order and of citizen the of Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) (2012). 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 section . . . 1229b,” cancellation of the is which removal. granting the Here, the of relief section Board under governing agreed with the immigration judge’s secondary finding that the facts in JimenezGarcia’s case did not warrant a favorable exercise of discretion. See In re C–V–T-, 22 I. & N. Dec. 7 (B.I.A. 1998) (discussing evaluative applicant warrants Jimenez-Garcia, in process a his for favorable brief filed determining exercise in this of whether an discretion). court, asserts a particularized and layered challenge to this conclusion. Because suggests, a denial of discretionary discovery in nature, relief we lack is, as its jurisdiction name to review it absent the assertion of a colorable constitutional claim or question of law. See Obioha v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 400, 405 (4th Cir. 2005) (“It is quite clear that the gatekeeper 2 Appeal: 15-1765 Doc: 21 provision [of Filed: 04/26/2016 Pg: 3 of 4 § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)] bars our jurisdiction to review a decision of the [Board] to actually deny a petition for cancellation of removal.”). An appellate court, in assessing its jurisdiction, must: [D]etermine, regardless of the rhetoric employed in the petition, whether it merely quarrels over the correctness of the factual findings or justification for the discretionary choices, in which case the court would lack jurisdiction, or whether it instead raises a “constitutional claim” or “question of law,” in which case the court could exercise jurisdiction to review those particular issues. Xiao Ji Chen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 471 F.3d 315, 329 (2d Cir. 2006). We have reviewed Jimenez-Garcia’s claims of error and agree with the Attorney General that Jimenez-Garcia fails to raise a colorable constitutional or discretionary determination. legal challenge to an entirely 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)). Despite being couched in terms of the propriety of the immigration judge’s analytical process and failure to abide by Board precedent, Jimenez-Garcia asks this court to reassess his evidence and to conclude that he does warrant a favorable exercise of discretion. not do. This we will See Sorcia v. Holder, 643 F.3d 117, 124-26 (4th Cir. 2011) (rejecting petitioner’s contention that his arguments—that 3 Appeal: 15-1765 Doc: 21 Filed: 04/26/2016 Pg: 4 of 4 the immigration judge misapplied the law and ruled contrary to established precedent in weighing the discretionary factors relevant to cancellation of removal—qualified as issues of law); Saintha v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 243, 251 (4th Cir. 2008) (explaining that this court “decline[s] to stretch reason to locate questions of law in what [it] ha[s] properly analyzed as a factual determination”). 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 4

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?