Court Opinion

ID: 9401141
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-10 21:00:37.210142+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:50.928877
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1432      Doc: 20         Filed: 06/09/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1432

        NABOR GONZALEZ GONZALEZ,

                            Petitioner,

                     v.

        MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

                            Respondent.

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

        Submitted: February 21, 2023                                         Decided: June 9, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

        Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Mark J. Devine, Charleston, South Carolina, for Petitioner. Brian Boynton,
        Assistant Attorney General, Shelley R. Goad, Assistant Director, Tim Ramnitz, Senior
        Litigation Counsel, Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division, UNITED STATES
        DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1432      Doc: 20          Filed: 06/09/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Nabor Gonzalez Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of

        an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the immigration

        judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1).

        In denying cancellation of removal, the immigration judge found that Gonzalez failed to

        show that his removal would cause an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship for his

        United States citizen daughter. We review this determination as a mixed question of fact

        and law. Gonzalez Galvan v. Garland, 6 F.4th 552, 560 (4th Cir. 2021).

               We have reviewed the administrative record in conjunction with the arguments

        advanced by Gonzalez and conclude there is no error in the agency’s dispositive hardship

        determination. We also conclude that Gonzalez’s daughter was not deprived of any

        constitutional rights due to the denial of Gonzalez’s application for cancellation of removal.

        Accordingly, we deny 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 DENIED

                                                      2