Jose Arredondo v. Loretta Lynch


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A076-475-494 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999814550].. [15-2328]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-2328 Doc: 21 Filed: 05/06/2016 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2328 JOSE RAUL VALERO ARREDONDO, a/k/a Jose Raul Arredondo, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: April 19, 2016 Before WYNN and Circuit Judge. KING, Circuit Decided: Judges, and May 6, 2016 HAMILTON, Senior Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Japheth N. Matemu, MATEMU LAW OFFICE P.C., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Song Park, Senior Litigation Counsel, Surell Brady, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-2328 Doc: 21 Filed: 05/06/2016 Pg: 2 of 4 PER CURIAM: Jose Raul Valero Arredondo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen. 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 section . judgment . . regarding 1229b,” cancellation of removal. 124-25 (4th Cir. discretionary 2011) denial the which granting is the of relief section under governing See Sorcia v. Holder, 643 F.3d 117, (finding of no jurisdiction cancellation of constitutional claim or question of law). to removal review absent Whether the alien has established the requisite hardship for cancellation of removal is a discretionary determination. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 888 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[A]n ‘exceptional and extremely unusual hardship’ determination is a subjective, discretionary judgment that has been carved out of our appellate jurisdiction.”); see also Munis v. Holder, 720 F.3d 1293, 1295 (10th Cir. 2013) (hardship discretionary decision). determination is an unreviewable Indeed, we have concluded that the issue of hardship is committed to agency discretion and thus is not subject to appellate review. (4th Cir. 2001). 2 Okpa v. INS, 266 F.3d 313, 317 Appeal: 15-2328 Doc: 21 Filed: 05/06/2016 Pg: 3 of 4 The fact that Arredondo is seeking review of the Board’s denial of his motion to reopen, as opposed to the initial denial of his request consequence. Board’s for cancellation of removal, of Arredondo’s motion to reopen, consider the [Board]’s basis for the denial.” on of no To determine whether we have jurisdiction over the denial at 126. is “we must Sorcia, 643 F.3d Where “the [Board] ma[k]e[s] a discretionary decision the merits of an enumerated provision [of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)], the fact that it d[oes] so through denying a motion to reopen d[oes] not save appellate jurisdiction.” Obioha v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 400, 407 (4th Cir. 2005); accord Alzainati (“Because v. Holder, 568 F.3d § 1252(a)(2)(B)(I) 844, 849 precludes (10th our Cir. review 2009) of an ‘exceptional and extremely unusual hardship’ determination under § 1229b(b)(1)(D), it also precludes our jurisdiction to review the [Board’s] denial of a motion to reopen because the alien still has failed to show the requisite hardship.”). Here, Arredondo submitted additional evidence with his motion to reopen, including evidence of his father’s declining health. The Board concluded that this new evidence, when considered with Arredondo’s other evidence, did not establish the requisite hardship. Because the Board clearly concluded that Arredondo still failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that his father would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual 3 Appeal: 15-2328 Doc: 21 hardship if Filed: 05/06/2016 Arredondo Pg: 4 of 4 returns to Mexico, we find ourselves without jurisdiction. Accordingly, dispense with contentions are we oral dismiss argument adequately the petition because presented in for the the review. * facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. PETITION DISMISSED * We note that Arredondo 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) (2012). 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?