UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-1599

MOHAMED SORIE KANU,

 Petitioner,

v.

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

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

Submitted: December 20, 2017 Decided: January 11, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and TRAXLER and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randall L. Johnson, JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Vienna, Virginia, for Petitioner. 

Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant Attorney General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Senior 

Litigation Counsel, Jessica A. Dawgert, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Mohamed Sorie Kanu, a native and citizen of Sierra Leone, petitions for review of 

an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reconsider 

its decision upholding the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of Kanu’s application for 

special rule cancellation of removal as a battered spouse pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1229b(b)(2) (2012). 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 IJ found, and the Board agreed, that Kanu failed to show that he was 

subjected to battery or extreme cruelty. Because this determination is discretionary in 

nature, we lack jurisdiction to review challenges to this finding absent a colorable 

constitutional claim or question of law. See Bedoya-Melendez v. United States Att’y 

Gen., 680 F.3d 1321, 1328 (11th Cir. 2012) (finding no jurisdiction to consider 

discretionary “battered or subjected to extreme cruelty” requirement for cancellation of 

removal under the Violence Against Women Act); 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 claims or questions of law); Obioha v. Gonzales, 431 

F.3d 400, 405 (4th Cir. 2005) (“It is quite clear that the gatekeeper provision bars our 

jurisdiction to review a decision of the B[oard] to actually deny a petition for cancellation 

of removal or the other enumerated forms of discretionary relief.”).
3

Upon review of Kanu’s claims, we find that he has not raised any colorable 

constitutional issues or questions 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 review for lack of 

jursidiction. 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