UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2079

YU HUA ZHENG,

Petitioner,

v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General,

Respondent.

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

Appeals.

Submitted: February 18, 2014 Decided: February 25, 2014

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Zhiyuan Qian, LAW OFFICES OF GERALD KARIKARI, P.C., New York, 

New York, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney 

General, William C. Peachey, Assistant Director, Jonathan 

Robbins, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Yu Hua Zheng, a native and citizen of the People’s 

Republic of China, 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 Zheng failed to meet his burden of establishing 

that his United States citizen wife and two children would 

suffer an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship if he is 

removed to China. 

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

determination is a subjective, discretionary judgment that has 

been carved out of our appellate jurisdiction.” RomeroTorres 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. Attorney Gen., 446 F.3d 1219, 1221-22 (11th Cir. 

2006); 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, we retain 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 Zheng’s claims of error and conclude 

that he fails to raise a constitutional claim or a question of 

law regarding the dispositive finding that he did not establish 

that his removal would be an exceptional and extremely unusual 

hardship. 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