Fray Jimenez-Garcia v. Loretta Lynch
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A088-237-928. Copies to all parties and the agency. [999804225]. [15-1765]
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UNPUBLISHED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Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?