Roberto De La Fuente v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., No. 12-3192 (8th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Petition for Review - Immigration. Order denying petitioner's motion for cancellation of removal is affirmed without comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 12-3192 ___________________________ Roberto Monroy De La Fuente lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: September 3, 2013 Filed: September 23, 2013 [Unpublished] ____________ Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Roberto Monroy De La Fuente (Monroy), a citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which upheld an immigration judge s denial of cancellation of removal. We conclude that Monroy s arguments regarding the BIA s discretionary determination that he failed to prove the requisite hardship to his qualifying relatives, for purposes of cancellation of removal, are unreviewable, see Zacarias-Velasquez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 429, 434 (8th Cir. 2007) (under 8 U.S.C. ยง 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), this court lacks jurisdiction to review denial of cancellation of removal for failure to prove exceptional and extremely unusual hardship); Guled v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 872, 880 (8th Cir. 2008) (petitioner s argument that BIA applied incorrect legal standard by failing to adequately consider certain factors in denying cancellation of removal essentially challenged adverse discretionary conclusion and did not present reviewable question of law), and that Monroy s other arguments are unavailing, see Sanchez-Velasco v. Holder, 593 F.3d 733, 737 (8th Cir. 2010) (no right to due process in purely discretionary remedy of cancellation of removal). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. ______________________________ -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
