Case ID: f-appx_96/html/0482-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Juan Carlos CADENA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-70884.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 12, 2004.
    
    Decided April 26, 2004.
    
      James G. Roche, Law Offices of James L. Rosenberg, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, CAC-Distriet Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, John C. Cunningham, Esq., John S. Hogan, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: HALL, O’SCANNLAIN, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juan Carlos Cadena, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the summary dismissal of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) of his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1) to review a final order of removal.

Because Cadena’s brief to this Court does not challenge the BIA’s summary dismissal for failure to file a brief, that issue is not properly before this Court. See Fed. R.App. P. 28(a); see also Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259 (9th Cir.1996). Rather, Cadena contends that the immigration judge erred in making the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” determination. We lack jurisdiction to review this discretionary determination. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 888 (9th Cir.2003).

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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.