Alfredo Herrera-Reyes v. Loretta Lynch

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: A200-971-528 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999961397].. [16-1201]

Appeal: 16-1201

Doc: 28

Filed: 11/03/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1201

ALFREDO HERRERA-REYES,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.

Submitted:

October 25, 2016

Decided:

November 3, 2016

Before AGEE, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chris E. Greene, GREENE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Charlotte, North
Carolina,
for
Petitioner.
Briena
L.
Strippoli,
Senior
Litigation
Counsel,
Benjamin
C.
Mizer,
Principal
Deputy
Assistant
Attorney
General,
Keith
I.
McManus,
Assistant
Director, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for
Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1201

Doc: 28

Filed: 11/03/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Alfredo

Herrera-Reyes,

a

native

and

citizen

of

Mexico,

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s denial
of his application for cancellation of removal.

Herrera-Reyes

challenges

to

the

Board’s

finding

that

he

failed

establish

exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his United States
citizen

son

so

as

to

qualify

for

relief.

Because

we

lack

jurisdiction to review this finding and Herrera-Reyes has not
raised any constitutional claims or questions of law, we dismiss
the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board.

In

re Herrera-Reyes (B.I.A. Feb. 3, 2016); see Sorcia v. Holder,
643 F.3d 117, 124-25 (4th Cir. 2011) (finding no jurisdiction to
review discretionary denial of cancellation of removal absent
constitutional claim or question of law).

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

2