Case ID: f-appx_194/html/0476-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Victor VASQUEZ-DELGADO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-71824.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 24, 2006.
    
    Decided July 31, 2006.
    Enrique Ramirez, Esq., Law Office of Enrique Ramirez, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jennifer Paisner, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Victor Vasquez-Delgado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

Contrary to Vasquez-Delgado’s contention, we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that he failed to establish his United States citizen child would experience exceptional and extremely unusual hardship upon his removal. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir.2005).

We also lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of voluntary departure. See Gomez-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 882, 883-84 (9th Cir.2005).

We do not consider whether Vasquez-Delgado established good moral character because his failure to establish the requisite hardship is dispositive. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l).

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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.