Case ID: f-appx_411/html/0082-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Pablo PEREZ-ZARATE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73456.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
    
    Filed Jan. 20, 2011.
    Diana M. Bailey, Law Office of Diana M. Bailey, Portland, OR, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Zoe Jaye Heller, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, ORP-District Director, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Pablo Perez-Zarate, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that PerezZarate 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). We do not address Perez-Zarate’s challenges to findings set forth by the IJ but not adopted by the BIA. See Brezilien v. Holder, 569 F.3d 403, 411 (9th Cir.2009) (where the BIA conducts its own review of the evidence and law rather than adopting the Id’s decision, our review is limited to the BIA’s decision, except to the extent that the Id’s opinion is expressly adopted).

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