Rodrigo Quijano v. Loretta Lynch, No. 15-1913 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1913 RODRIGO QUIJANO, Petitioner, v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Submitted: April 20, 2016 Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge. HARRIS, Decided: Circuit Judges, May 17, 2016 and HAMILTON, Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sam H. Hasan, HASAN LAW GROUP, Falls Church, Virginia, for Petitioner. Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Douglas Ginsburg, Assistant Director, Stratton C. Strand, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Rodrigo Quijano, a native and citizen of Colombia, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) Judge’s (IJ) removal. dismissing denial For the of his his reasons appeal from application set forth the for below, Immigration cancellation we dismiss of 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 judgment regarding the granting of relief under section . . . 1229b,” which is the statutory section governing cancellation of removal. Board agreed, establishing that that In this case, the IJ found, and the Quijano his failed lawful to meet permanent his resident burden wife of would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if Quijano is removed to Colombia. clearly discretionary jurisdiction colorable to We conclude that this determination is in review constitutional nature, challenges claim and to or we therefore this finding question of lack absent law. a See Sattani v. Holder, 749 F.3d 368, 372 (5th Cir. 2014) (finding no jurisdiction to review demonstrate requisite determination hardship to that aliens qualifying failed to relative); 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 Quijano’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 is not authorized by § 1252(a)(2)(D).” (emphasis added)). Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. 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.
