Case ID: f-appx_334/html/0110-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rigoberto JUAREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73836.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 14, 2009.
    
    Filed Oct. 13, 2009.
    Rigoberto Juarez, Inglewood, CA, pro se.
    
      Christopher C. Fuller, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, CAC-Distriet Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rigoberto Juarez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision dismissing his appeal of the immigration judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal based on his failure to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his United States citizen children. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Juarez failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir.2009). Juarez’s contentions that the immigration judge failed to properly consider and weigh all evidence of hardship do not raise a colorable due process claim. Martinz-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.