Case ID: f-appx_671/html/0603-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Felix HERNANDEZ-ARROYO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-71206
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted December 14, 2016 
    
    Filed December 19, 2016
    Nicholas W. Marchi, Carney & Marchi, PS, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner
    Matthew B. George, 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, LEAYY, 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

Felix Hernandez-Arroyo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that Hernán-dez-Arroyo failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005).

Hernandez-Arroyo’s contentions that the BIA applied an incorrect legal standard, considered facts not in the record, failed to show proper consideration of all factors, and failed to address all issues raised on appeal are not supported by the record. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency need not “write an exegesis on every contention” (internal citation omitted)).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 
      
       xhiS disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,