Gabriel Martinez Vasquez, a/k/a Gabriel Martinez v. Michael B. Mukasey

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1419
GABRIEL MARTINEZ VASQUEZ, a/k/a Gabriel Martinez,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Submitted: December 18, 2008 Decided: January 22, 2009
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Arturo H. Hernandez, ARTURO H. HERNANDEZ, PC, Silver Spring,
Maryland, for Petitioner. Gregory G. Katsas, Assistant Attorney
General, Carol Federighi, Senior Litigation Counsel, Paul T.
Cygnarowicz, Trial Attorney, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
Gabriel Martinez Vasquez (“Martinez”), a native and
citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to remand
and dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s order
denying his application for cancellation of removal. The
immigration judge found Martinez failed to show he was of good
moral character, that he had been continuously present in the
United States for ten years or that his removal would be an
exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his family. See
8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1) (2006). We deny the petition for review.
We are without jurisdiction to review the Board’s
affirmance of the immigration judge’s finding that Martinez was
not of good moral character or that his removal would be a
hardship to his family, as defined under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1).
See Jean v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 475, 481-82 (4th Cir. 2006)
(court does not have jurisdiction to review the denial of
cancellation of removal); see also Obioha v. Gonzales, 431 F.3d
400, 405 (4th Cir. 2005) (“It is quite clear that the gatekeeper
provision bars our jurisdiction to review a decision of the
B[oard] to actually deny a petition for cancellation of removal
or the other enumerated forms of discretionary relief.”). We
find substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Martinez was not continuously present in the United States for
ten years prior to service of the notice to appear.
The Board’s decision denying Martinez’s motion to
remand is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Obioha, 431 F.3d at
408. We find no abuse of discretion because Martinez failed to
establish that the new evidence he intended on submitting was
previously unavailable.
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 the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED

-- 3 of 3 --