Albenis Piters-Rosa v. Attorney General of the United States

PSM-039 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 12-2331
___________
ALBENIS PITERS-ROSA,
Petitioner
v.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES,
Respondent
____________________________________
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
(Agency No. A098-032-222)
Immigration Judge: Honorable Margaret R. Reichenberg
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 2, 2013
Before: RENDELL, FISHER and GARTH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: January 11, 2013)
___________
OPINION OF THE COURT
___________
PER CURIAM
Albenis Pieters-Rosa is a citizen of the Netherlands who is removable for being
present without valid entry documents. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). He applied
for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b) and other relief not now relevant.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
That application required him to show that his removal “would result in exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship” to his qualifying relatives, in this case his United States
citizen wife and children. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). The Immigration Judge, after
hearing testimony and applying the standard set forth in In re Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. &
N. Dec. 56 (BIA 2001), and In re Recinas
Pieters-Rosa’s sole argument on review is that the Agency erred in denying his
cancellation application because “[t]he record shows that Petitioner did substantiate the
hardship requirement[.]” As the Government argues, we lack jurisdiction to review the
discretionary denial of cancellation of removal, including the Agency’s determination
that a petitioner did not show sufficient hardship.
, 23 I. & N. Dec. 467 (BIA 2002), concluded
that Pieters-Rosa had not demonstrated the requisite hardship, denied his application, and
ordered his removal to the Netherlands. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed,
and Pieters-Rosa petitions for review. The Government has filed a motion to dismiss on
the ground that we lack jurisdiction. We agree.
See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Patel
v. Att’y Gen., 619 F.3d 230, 232 (3d Cir. 2010). We retain jurisdiction in this context
only to review colorable constitutional claims or questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. §
1252(a)(2)(D); Patel, 619 F.3d at 232. Pieters-Rosa has not raised any such claims or
questions, colorable or otherwise. Instead, his sole argument is that he “met [his] burden
of showing an exceptional hardship. We do not have jurisdiction to review this claim
because it challenges a discretionary determination and does not present a constitutional
question or a question of law.” Patel, 619 F.3d at 233. Thus, the Government’s motion is

-- 2 of 3 --

3
granted and the petition will be dismissed.

-- 3 of 3 --