Silvio Bittencourt Baptista v. LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED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Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Silvio Bittencourt Baptista, a native and citizen of
Brazil, petitions for review of an order of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal from 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 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 his
burden of establishing that his 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

-- 2 of 3 --

3
§ 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 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 grant the Attorney General’s pending
motion to dismiss and 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 --