Opinion
22-1432
06-09-2023
NABOR GONZALEZ GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent.
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UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: February 21, 2023
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.
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.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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.