Domingo Alencastro v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 13-1938 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1938 DOMINGO GERMAN ALENCASTRO, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: January 14, 2014 Decided: January 29, 2014 Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. H. Glenn Fogle, Jr., THE FOGLE LAW FIRM, LLC, Atlanta, Georgia, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, Douglas E. Ginsburg, Assistant Director, Franklin M. Johnson, Jr., Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Domingo Mexico, German petitions for Immigration Appeals immigration of review ( Board ) judge s cancellation Alencastro, order removal of a an native order dismissing denying under 8 and of his citizen of Board of from the the appeal his application U.S.C. § 1229b for (2012). We dismiss the petition for review. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (2012), no court shall have jurisdiction to review . . . any judgment regarding the granting of relief under section . . . 1229b. 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). Here, the immigration judge found, and the Board agreed, that Alencastro failed to meet his burden of establishing that his United States citizen father and daughter would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if he is removed to Mexico. [A]n exceptional and extremely unusual hardship determination is a subjective, discretionary judgment that has been carved out of our appellate jurisdiction. Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 888 (9th Cir. 2003); see, e.g., Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 36 (2d Cir. 2008); Memije v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 1163, 1164 (9th Cir. 2007); 2 Martinez v. U.S. Att y. Gen., 446 F.3d 1219, 1221-22 (11th Cir. 2006); Meraz-Reyes v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 842, 843 (8th Cir. 2006) (per curiam); see also Obioha v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 400, 405 (4th Cir. 2005) ( It is quite clear that the gatekeeper provision [of § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)] bars our jurisdiction to review a decision of the [Board] to actually deny a petition for cancellation of removal. ). Indeed, this court has concluded that the issue of hardship is committed to agency discretion and thus is not subject to appellate review. 313, 317 (4th jurisdiction Cir. to questions of law. 2001). review Okpa v. INS, 266 F.3d Nevertheless, colorable this court constitutional retains claims and 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358 (4th Cir. 2009). We have reviewed Alencastro s claims of error and conclude that he fails to raise a constitutional claim or a question of review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before law. contentions this court Accordingly, we are adequately and argument dismiss presented would not the in aid petition the the for materials decisional process. PETITION DISMISSED 3
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.
