Case ID: f-appx_221/html/0626-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gerardo FELIPE-ACOSTA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-72238.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 20, 2007.
    
    Filed Feb. 23, 2007.
    Kevin A. Bove, Esq., Escondido, CA, for Petitioner.
    Gerardo Felipe-Acosta, Escondido, CA, pro se.
    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, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gerardo Felipe-Acosta, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision summarily affirming without separate opinion 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 child.

Petitioner contends that the IJ failed to consider and properly weigh all the hardship factors, and erred in concluding that he failed to establish the requisite hardship to his qualifying relative.

We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary determination that petitioner failed to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. See MartinezRosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005). Although we retain jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s potential constitutional claims, Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1001, 1004 (9th Cir.2003), we reject his challenge to the hardship standard because the IJ’s interpretation and application fell “within the broad range authorized by the statutory language,” id. at 1006.

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