Jose Elias Lorenzana-Guerra v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

22-1011Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit10.09.2022

Gesamter Gesetzestext

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1011
JOSE ELIAS LORENZANA-GUERRA,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Submitted: September 8, 2022 Decided: September 12, 2022
Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Tilman Dunbar, Jr., LAW OFFICE OF TILMAN DUNBAR, JR., Silver
Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney
General, John S. Hogan, Assistant Director, Lindsay Dunn, Trial Attorney, Office of
Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jose Elias Lorenzana-Guerra (Lorenzana), a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal
from the immigration judge’s denial of Lorenzana’s application for cancellation of removal
under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). In denying cancellation of removal, the immigration judge
found, in relevant part, that Lorenzana failed to show that his removal would cause an
exceptional and extremely unusual hardship for his U.S.-citizen son. We review this
determination as a mixed question of fact and law. Gonzalez Galvan v. Garland, 6 F.4th
552, 560 (4th Cir. 2021).
We have reviewed the administrative record in conjunction with the arguments
advanced by Lorenzana and conclude there is no error in the agency’s dispositive hardship
determination. Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the
Board. In re Lorenzana-Guerra (B.I.A. Dec. 3, 2021). We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal questions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

-- 2 of 2 --

Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort

Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.