UNPUBLISHED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Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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