Polyana Pitthan Stolf Baptista v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1719
POLYANA PITTHAN STOLF BAPTISTA,
Petitioner,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: April 4, 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Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Polyana Pitthan Stolf Baptista, a native and citizen of
Brazil, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing her appeal from the
immigration judge’s denial of her 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 judgment regarding the granting of relief under section
. . . 1229b,” which is the section governing cancellation of
removal. In this case, the immigration judge found, and the Board
agreed, that Baptista failed to meet her burden of establishing
that her United States citizen child would suffer exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship if Baptista is returned to Brazil. We
conclude that this determination is clearly discretionary in
nature, 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 to review determination that aliens
failed to demonstrate requisite hardship to their U.S. citizen
son); 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

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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
she fails to raise a colorable constitutional claim or question of
law under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) (2012). 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 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 of 3 --