Case ID: f-appx_314/html/0960-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Conrad Acierto PINEDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 05-71612, 05-73320.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 18, 2009.
    
    Filed March 2, 2009.
    Gail A. Dulay, Esq., San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    District Director, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Kristin A. Cabral, Esq., Susan K. Houser, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

In these consolidated petitions for review, Conrad Acierto Pineda, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming without opinion an immigration judge’s decision finding him ineligible for a section 212(h) waiver of inadmissibility and its order declining to exercise its sua sponte authority to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petitions for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that Pineda failed to establish that denying him admission would result in extreme hardship to his United States citizen wife, parents, and children. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 888 (9th Cir.2003) (“[A]n exceptional and extremely unusual hardship determination is a subjective discretionary judgment that has been carved out of our appellate jurisdiction.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

We do not address Pineda’s contentions regarding the application of 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(d) to his case because the agency’s hardship determination is dispositive.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision not to invoke its sua sponte authority to reopen removal proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(a). See Ekimian v. INS, 303 F.3d 1153, 1159 (9th Cir.2002).

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