Case ID: f-appx_143/html/0749-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Esperanza Cristina BERNARDO MONTERROSA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-73390.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted July 11, 2005.
    
    Decided July 22, 2005.
    Walter Rafael Pineda, Esq., Law Offices of Walter Rafael Pineda, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Jennifer Lightbody, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, RAWLINSON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Esperanza Cristina Bernardo Monterrosa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of her application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Bernardo’s challenge to the IJ’s extreme hardship determination because it is a discretionary, nonreviewable determination. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.2003) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)).

We also lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary determination that Bernardo did not establish good moral character. See Moran v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir.2005) (indicating that a good moral character determination is only reviewable where it falls under or is based upon one of the per se statutory exclusions contained in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.