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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. .. [15-2328]
Pg: 1 of 4
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JOSE RAUL VALERO ARREDONDO, a/k/a Jose Raul Arredondo,
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
April 19, 2016
Before WYNN and
May 6, 2016
Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 4
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
cancellation of removal.
See Sorcia v. Holder, 643 F.3d 117,
constitutional claim or question of law).
Whether the alien has
established the requisite hardship for cancellation of removal
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
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).
Okpa v. INS, 266 F.3d 313, 317
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
consider the [Board]’s basis for the denial.”
To determine whether we have jurisdiction over the
Sorcia, 643 F.3d
Where “the [Board] ma[k]e[s] a discretionary decision
§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)], the fact that it d[oes] so through denying
Obioha v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 400, 407 (4th Cir. 2005); accord
‘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.”).
motion to reopen, including evidence of his father’s declining
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
Pg: 4 of 4
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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).
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?