Jose Arredondo v. Loretta Lynch
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A076-475-494 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999814550].. [15-2328]
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UNPUBLISHED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Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?