Filed: Sep. 23, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 12-3192 _ Roberto Monroy De La Fuente 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for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals _ Submitted: September 3, 2013 Filed: September 23, 2013 [Unpublished] _ Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Roberto Monroy De La Fuente (Monroy), a citizen of Mexico, petition
Summary: United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit _ No. 12-3192 _ Roberto Monroy De La Fuente 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for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals _ Submitted: September 3, 2013 Filed: September 23, 2013 [Unpublished] _ Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Roberto Monroy De La Fuente (Monroy), a citizen of Mexico, petitions..
More
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 12-3192
___________________________
Roberto Monroy De La Fuente
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 3, 2013
Filed: September 23, 2013
[Unpublished]
____________
Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.
Roberto Monroy De La Fuente (Monroy), a citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which upheld an
immigration judge’s denial of cancellation of removal. We conclude that Monroy’s
arguments regarding the BIA’s discretionary determination that he failed to prove the
requisite hardship to his qualifying relatives, for purposes of cancellation of removal,
are unreviewable, see Zacarias-Velasquez v. Mukasey,
509 F.3d 429, 434 (8th Cir.
2007) (under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), this court lacks jurisdiction to review denial
of cancellation of removal for failure to prove exceptional and extremely unusual
hardship); Guled v. Mukasey,
515 F.3d 872, 880 (8th Cir. 2008) (petitioner’s
argument that BIA applied incorrect legal standard by failing to adequately consider
certain factors in denying cancellation of removal essentially challenged adverse
discretionary conclusion and did not present reviewable question of law), and that
Monroy’s other arguments are unavailing, see Sanchez-Velasco v. Holder,
593 F.3d
733, 737 (8th Cir. 2010) (no right to due process in purely discretionary remedy of
cancellation of removal).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-