Silvio Baptista v. Loretta Lynch, No. 15-1722 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1722 SILVIO BITTENCOURT BAPTISTA, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: February 11, 2016 Decided: March 14, 2016 Before KING, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hashim G. Jeelani, Royal Oak, Michigan, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Jennifer P. Levings, Senior Litigation Counsel, Laura Halliday Hickein, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Silvio Brazil, Bittencourt petitions Immigration for Appeals Baptista, review a (Board) of an native order dismissing his and of citizen the of Board appeal from of the immigration judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal. 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. the which granting is the of relief section under governing In this case, the immigration judge found, and the Board agreed, that Baptista failed to meet his burden would of establishing suffer Baptista that exceptional is returned determination is his and to clearly United extremely Brazil. States unusual We discretionary citizen hardship conclude in child that nature, if this and we therefore lack jurisdiction to review challenges to this finding absent a colorable constitutional claim or question of law. See Sattani v. Holder, 749 F.3d 368, 372 (5th Cir. 2014) (finding no jurisdiction demonstrate to review requisite determination hardship to that their aliens U.S. failed citizen to son); Obioha v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d 400, 405 (4th Cir. 2005) (“It is quite clear that the gatekeeper 2 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.”); Okpa v. INS, 266 F.3d 313, 317 (4th Cir. 2001) (concluding, under transitional rules, that issue of hardship is committed to agency discretion and is not subject to appellate review). We have reviewed Baptista’s claims of error and conclude that he question fails of to law raise under 8 a colorable U.S.C. constitutional § 1252(a)(2)(D) claim (2012). or See Gomis v. Holder, 571 F.3d 353, 358 (4th Cir. 2009) (“[A]bsent a colorable constitutional claim or question of law, our review of the issue added)). motion is not authorized by § 1252(a)(2)(D).” (emphasis Accordingly, we grant the Attorney General’s pending to dismiss jurisdiction. and dismiss the petition for lack of 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 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.
