Yu Zheng v. Eric Holder, Jr., No. 13-2079 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2079 YU HUA ZHENG, Petitioner, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: February 18, 2014 Decided: February 25, 2014 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Zhiyuan Qian, LAW OFFICES OF GERALD KARIKARI, P.C., New York, New York, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, William C. Peachey, Assistant Director, Jonathan Robbins, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Yu Hua Zheng, a native and citizen of the People s Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ( Board ) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge s cancellation of order removal denying under 8 his U.S.C. application § 1229b (2012). for 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 Zheng failed to meet his burden of establishing that his United States citizen wife and two children would suffer an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if he is removed to China. [A]n exceptional and extremely unusual hardship determination is a subjective, discretionary judgment that has been carved Torres v. e.g., out of Ashcroft, Barco-Sandoval our 327 v. appellate F.3d jurisdiction. 887, 888 (9th Cir. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, Romero- 2003); 36 (2d see, Cir. 2008); Memije v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 1163, 1164 (9th Cir. 2007); 2 Martinez v. Attorney Gen., 446 F.3d 1219, 1221-22 (11th Cir. 2006); 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 committed and is to agency subject to appellate review. (4th Cir. 2001). discretion thus is not Okpa v. INS, 266 F.3d 313, 317 Nevertheless, we retain jurisdiction to review colorable constitutional claims and questions of law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358 (4th Cir. 2009). We have reviewed Zheng s claims of error and conclude that he fails to raise a constitutional claim or a question of law regarding the dispositive finding that he did not establish that his removal would be an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. dispense Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review. with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the 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.
