Case ID: f-appx_403/html/0280-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Eduardo MARTINEZ-HERRERA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-72358.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Nov. 2, 2010.
    Filed Nov. 17, 2010.
    Kari Hong, Esq., Law Offices of Kari E. Hong, Portland, OR, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Office of the District Chief Counsel U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: PAEZ and BEA, Circuit Judges, and DUFFY, Senior District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Kevin Thomas Duffy, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Eduardo Martinez-Herrera (“Petitioner”), a native and citizen of Guatemala who entered the United States without inspection in 1988, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying Petitioner a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition.

We lack jurisdiction to review denial of Petitioner’s request for a waiver of inadmissibility under § 1182(h). Petitioner does not raise a cognizable legal or constitutional question as to the BIA’s denial of his waiver request. The BIA determined that Petitioner was statutorily eligible for § 1182(h) relief, but did not, in exercise of its discretion, grant § 1182(h) relief.

There is no merit to Petitioner’s contention that a finding of eligibility requires granting a waiver. § 1182(h) expressly states that the “Attorney General may, in his discretion,” grant a waiver to an eligible petitioner. Here, the BIA properly considered Petitioner’s lack of rehabilitation as one of many factors in determining that relief was not warranted. Because whether to grant § 1182(h) relief is a discretionary decision, we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Mejia v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 991, 999 (9th Cir.2007).

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