UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

 TENTH CIRCUIT

ANDERSON BENTO,

 Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., United States 

Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 09-9543

(Board of Immigration Appeals)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before HARTZ, SEYMOUR and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

 

 Petitioner Anderson Bento seeks review of the decision of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying his request for cancellation of removal, see 8 

U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). We GRANT Bento’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. But because we lack jurisdiction to consider his petition for 

 

*After examining the parties’ briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this 

petition for review. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is 

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not 

binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and 

collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. 

R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

February 16, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 09-9543 Document: 01018367580 Date Filed: 02/16/2010 Page: 1
2 

review, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), we DISMISS it. 

I. Background 

 Bento is a citizen of Brazil who in 1990, at age ten, entered the United States with 

his mother as a temporary visitor and failed to leave. In 1999, he married a United States 

citizen; the couple had a daughter in January 2000). Immigration officials detained Bento 

in September 2008, while he was serving a six-day sentence in California for petty theft, 

and he has been in immigration officials’ custody ever since. 

II. Decision to deny cancellation of removal 

Before the Immigration Judge (“IJ”), Bento conceded removability, but requested 

that his removal be cancelled. 

 The Attorney General may cancel removal of, and adjust to the 

status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, an alien who 

is inadmissible or deportable from the United States if the alien— 

(A) has been physically present in the United States for a 

continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately 

preceding the date of such application; 

(B) has been a person of good moral character during such 

period; 

(C) has not been convicted of an offense under section 

1182(a)(2), 1227(a)(2), or 1227(a)(3) of this title (except in a 

case described in section 1227(a)(7) of this title where the 

Attorney General exercises discretion to grant a waiver); and 

(D) establishes that removal would result in exceptional and 

extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s spouse, parent, or 

child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien 

lawfully admitted for permanent resident. 

Appellate Case: 09-9543 Document: 01018367580 Date Filed: 02/16/2010 Page: 2
3 

8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). It was Bento’s burden to prove that he was eligible for such 

relief and that such relief should, in the exercise of discretion, be granted. See Garcia v. 

Holder, 584 F.3d 1288, 1289-90 (10th Cir. 2009) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 1240.8(d)). 

After a hearing, the IJ held that, while Bento had been in the United States for at 

least ten years immediately preceding his application for the cancellation of removal, he 

failed to meet any of 8 U.S.C. § 1129b(b)(1)’s remaining three requirements for 

cancellation of removal. A single member of the BIA upheld that determination, based 

solely upon Bento’s failure to establish that his removal would present an exceptional and 

extremely unusual hardship for his wife and daughter. Bento now seeks review of that 

decision. “In these circumstances, the BIA’s order is the final order under review but we 

may consult the IJ’s opinion to the extent that the BIA relied upon or incorporated it.” 

Hamilton v. Holder, 584 F.3d 1284, 1286 (10th Cir. 2009) (quotation omitted). 

This court lacks jurisdiction to review “the discretionary aspects of a decision 

concerning cancellation of removal,” but can consider a constitutional or legal challenge 

to the BIA’s decision. Arambula-Medina v. Holder, 572 F.3d 824, 827-28 (10th Cir. 

2009) (applying 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)), petition for cert. filed, 78 U.S.L.W. 3362 

(U.S. Dec. 7, 2009) (No. 09-664); see also Garcia, 584 F.3d at 1289 n.2. Bento, however, 

fails to assert any legal or constitutional challenge to the BIA determination that he failed 

to establish that his removal would cause an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship 

for his wife and daughter. We, therefore, have no jurisdiction to review his petition. See

Arambula-Medina, 572 F.3d at 828 (holding appeals court had no jurisdiction to review 

Appellate Case: 09-9543 Document: 01018367580 Date Filed: 02/16/2010 Page: 3
4 

determination that petitioner’s removal would not result in exceptional and extremely 

unusual hardship to a qualifying relative under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D)) 

III. Conclusion 

We DISMISS Bento’s petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 09-9543 Document: 01018367580 Date Filed: 02/16/2010 Page: 4