Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01201/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01201-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alfredo Herrera-Reyes
Petitioner
Loretta E. Lynch
Respondent

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1201

ALFREDO HERRERA-REYES,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: October 25, 2016 Decided: November 3, 2016

Before AGEE, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chris E. Greene, GREENE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Charlotte, North 

Carolina, for Petitioner. Briena L. Strippoli, Senior 

Litigation Counsel, Benjamin C. Mizer, Principal Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General, Keith I. McManus, Assistant 

Director, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for 

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1201 Doc: 28 Filed: 11/03/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Alfredo Herrera-Reyes, a native and citizen of Mexico, 

petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s denial 

of his application for cancellation of removal. Herrera-Reyes 

challenges the Board’s finding that he failed to establish 

exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his United States 

citizen son so as to qualify for relief. Because we lack 

jurisdiction to review this finding and Herrera-Reyes has not 

raised any constitutional claims or questions of law, we dismiss 

the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. In 

re Herrera-Reyes (B.I.A. Feb. 3, 2016); see Sorcia v. Holder, 

643 F.3d 117, 124-25 (4th Cir. 2011) (finding no jurisdiction to 

review discretionary denial of cancellation of removal absent 

constitutional claim or question of law). 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

Appeal: 16-1201 Doc: 28 Filed: 11/03/2016 Pg: 2 of 2