Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 12 views

    Ssekamwa v. Ashcroft, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed a petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision. The Board had dismissed an appeal from the denial of a motion to reconsider or reopen an immigration judge's decision denying an application for cancellation of removal. The immigration judge had found that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that their removal to Uganda would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to their U.S. citizen daughter. The Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Board's finding regarding hardship.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Ssekamwa v. Ashcroft, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    12 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed a petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision. The Board had dismissed an appeal from the denial of a motion to reconsider or reopen an immigration judge's decision denying an application for cancellation of removal. The immigration judge had found that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that their removal to Uganda would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to their U.S. citizen daughter. The Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Board's finding regarding hardship.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-12-13 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-1732

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed a petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision. The Board had dismissed an appeal from the denial of a motion to reconsider or reopen an immigration judge's decision denying an application for cancellation of removal. The immigration judge had found that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that their removal to Uganda would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to their U.S. citizen daughter. The Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Board's finding regarding hardship.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    12 views3 pages

    Ssekamwa v. Ashcroft, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed a petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision. The Board had dismissed an appeal from the denial of a motion to reconsider or reopen an immigration judge's decision denying an application for cancellation of removal. The immigration judge had found that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that their removal to Uganda would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to their U.S. citizen daughter. The Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Board's finding regarding hardship.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 04-1732

    PAULO JAMES SSEKAMWA; JACKIE SARAH MATOVU,


    Petitioners,
    versus
    JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General,
    Respondent.

    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration


    Appeals. (A70-306-640; A78-234-494)

    Submitted:

    November 17, 2004

    Decided:

    December 13, 2004

    Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    James T. Reynolds, PAUL SHEARMAN ALLEN & ASSOCIATES, Washington,


    D.C., for Petitioners.
    Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney
    General, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Assistant Director, Carol
    Federighi, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Paulo James Ssekamwa and Jackie Sarah Matovu, natives and
    citizens of Uganda, petition for review of the Board of Immigration
    Appeals (Board) order dismissing the appeal from the denial of a
    motion to reconsider or reopen.

    The Petitioners sought to reopen

    the immigration judges decision denying their application for


    cancellation of removal.

    We dismiss the appeal.

    The Attorney General may cancel removal of an alien from


    the United States if the alien:

    (1) has been physically present in

    the United States for a continuous period of not less than ten
    years immediately preceding the date of such application; (2) has
    been a person of good moral character during this period; (3) has
    not

    been

    convicted

    of

    certain

    enumerated

    offenses;

    and

    (4) establishes that removal would result in exceptional and


    extremely unusual hardship to the aliens spouse, parent, or
    child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully
    admitted for permanent residence.

    8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1) (2000).

    The immigration judge denied the application after finding Ssekamwa


    failed to demonstrate his and his wifes removal would result in
    exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to their daughter who
    was born in the United States.

    The Petitioners filed a motion to

    reopen or reconsider submitting evidence regarding their daughters


    health.

    The motion was denied.

    On appeal, the Board found the

    - 2 -

    Petitioners failed to show an exceptional and extremely unusual


    hardship with respect to their daughter.
    Under 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) (2000), no court shall
    have jurisdiction to review any judgment regarding the granting of
    relief under section . . . 1229b, cancellation of removal.
    without

    jurisdiction

    to

    review

    the

    Boards

    finding

    We are

    that

    the

    Petitioners failed to show an exceptional and extremely unusual


    hardship.
    We have not considered the new evidence the Petitioners
    submitted to this Court in the joint appendix.
    limited to the administrative record.

    Our review is

    8 U.S.C. 1252(b)(4)(A)

    (2000).
    We find the Petitioners argument that the appeal from
    the

    immigration

    judges

    denial

    of

    the

    motion

    to

    reopen

    and

    reconsider was also timely as to the decision denying asylum,


    withholding of removal and cancellation of removal is without
    merit.

    We are without jurisdiction to review the immigration

    judges denial of asylum, withholding of removal and cancellation


    of removal.
    Accordingly, we dismiss 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 DISMISSED

    - 3 -

    You might also like