UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1938

DOMINGO GERMAN ALENCASTRO, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General, 

Respondent. 

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

Appeals.

Submitted: January 14, 2014 Decided: January 29, 2014

Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. 

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

H. Glenn Fogle, Jr., THE FOGLE LAW FIRM, LLC, Atlanta, Georgia, 

for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General, 

Douglas E. Ginsburg, Assistant Director, Franklin M. Johnson, 

Jr., Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 

OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Domingo German Alencastro, a native and citizen of 

Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the 

immigration judge’s order denying his application for 

cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b (2012). 

We dismiss the petition for review. 

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (2012), “no court 

shall have jurisdiction to review . . . any judgment regarding 

the granting of relief under section . . . 1229b.” 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). 

Here, the immigration judge found, and the Board agreed, that 

Alencastro failed to meet his burden of establishing that his 

United States citizen father and daughter would suffer 

exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if he is removed to 

Mexico. 

“[A]n ‘exceptional and extremely unusual hardship’ 

determination is a subjective, discretionary judgment that has 

been carved out of our appellate jurisdiction.” 

Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 888 (9th Cir. 2003); 

see, e.g., Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 36 (2d Cir. 

2008); Memije v. Gonzales, 481 F.3d 1163, 1164 (9th Cir. 2007); 
3

Martinez v. U.S. Att’y. Gen., 446 F.3d 1219, 1221-22 (11th Cir. 

2006); Meraz-Reyes v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 842, 843 (8th Cir. 

2006) (per curiam); see also 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 the [Board] to actually deny a petition for 

cancellation of removal.”). Indeed, this court has concluded 

that the issue of hardship is committed to agency discretion and 

thus is not subject to appellate review. Okpa v. INS, 266 F.3d 

313, 317 (4th Cir. 2001). Nevertheless, this court retains 

jurisdiction to review colorable constitutional claims and 

questions of law. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Gomis v. Holder, 

571 F.3d 353, 358 (4th Cir. 2009). 

We have reviewed Alencastro’s claims of error and 

conclude that he fails to raise a constitutional claim or a 

question of law. Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for 

review. 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