United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 11-3692 ___________________________ Cristobal Herrera lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent ____________ Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ____________ Submitted: September 4, 2012 Filed: September 7, 2012 [Unpublished] ____________ LOKEN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Cristobal Herrera, a citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an immigration judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and cancellation of removal. After careful review, we conclude that the denials of asylum and withholding of removal are supported by
Transcript
United States Court of AppealsFor the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 11-3692___________________________
Cristobal Herrera
lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner
v.
Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General of the United States
lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent____________
Petition for Review of an Order of theBoard of Immigration Appeals
____________
Submitted: September 4, 2012Filed: September 7, 2012
[Unpublished]____________
LOKEN, BOWMAN, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Cristobal Herrera, a citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming an immigration judge’s denial of
asylum, withholding of removal, and cancellation of removal. After careful review,
we conclude that the denials of asylum and withholding of removal are supported by
Denials of asylum and withholding of removal were supported by substantial evidence; court lacked jurisdiction to review the BIA's discretionary decision denying cancellation of removal.
substantial evidence on the administrative record as a whole. See Khrystotodorov v.
Mukasey, 551 F.3d 775, 781 (8th Cir. 2008). We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s
discretionary decision denying cancellation of removal because Herrera failed to show
that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his
children. See Zacarias-Velasquez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 429, 434 (8th Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
8th CIRCUIT RULE 47B: AFFIRMANCE OR ENFORCEMENT WITHOUT OPINION . A judgment or order appealed may be affirmed or enforced without opinion if the court determines an opinion would have no precedential value and any of the following circumstances disposes of the matter submitted to the court for decision: . (1) a judgment of the district court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous; . (2) the evidence in support of a jury verdict is not insufficient; . (3) the order of an administrative agency is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole; or . (4) no error of law appears. . The court in its discretion, with or without further explanation, may enter either of the following orders: "AFFIRMED. See 8th Cir. R. 47B"; or "ENFORCED. See 8th Cir. R. 47B."
The BIA denied Zacarias-Velasquez cancellation of removal because he failed to prove that his removal would cause an “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his American-citizen daughter, Haydy. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). We lack jurisdiction to review this finding because it “is precisely the discretionary determination that Congress shielded from our review.” Meraz-Reyes v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 842, 843 (8th Cir.2006) (per curiam); see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)...... *************************************************************************************************** The IJ noted that this relief is “limited to truly exceptional cases,” and this case presented inadequate evidence that Zacarias-Velasquez's removal would result in a hardship “substantially beyond” what would ordinarily be expected from a parent's deportation.
