Case ID: f-appx_672/html/0716-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose ALFARO-AREVANO, AKA Jose Miguel Alfaro, AKA Jesus Alfaro-Arevalo, AKA Jesus Manuel Alfaro-Arevano, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-71917
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 14, 2016 
    
    Filed December 23, 2016
    Jose Alfaro-Arevano, Pro Se
    Laura M.L. Maroldy,' Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2),
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Alfaro-Arevano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his request for administrative closure and denying his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of administrative closure. See Diaz-Covarrubias v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 1114, 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) (this court lacks jurisdiction to review the denial of administrative closure for lack of a sufficiently meaningful standard to evaluate the decision).

To the extent Alfaro-Arevano challenges the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal, we lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary determination that Alfaro-Arevano failed to show the requisite exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Martinez-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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.