T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NO T F ORP UB L I C AT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T LE ON EL PE NA - SANCHEZ, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 06- 72049 A ge nc yN o. A 075- 530- 186 ME MO R A N D U M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d J anua ry10, 2011 ** B efo re: B E E Z E R , T A L L M A N , an dC A L L A H A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. L e one l P e na - S anc he z , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l fr om an I m m i gr a t i on Judge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) r e m ova l or de r . O urj ur i s di c t i on i s gove rne d by 

# FI LED JAN 25 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS06- 72049 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o q u e s tio n s o f law , C er ez o v. Mukasey , 512 F .3 d1 1 6 3 , 1 1 6 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) , an dw e d is m is s in p art, d e n yin p art, an dg r an t in p a rt th e p e titio n f

o rr e v ie w . W e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew the B IA ’ s di sc re t i on ary det erm i nat i on that P e n a - S a n c h e z f

a ile dto s h o w e x c e p tio n a l an de x tr e m e lyu n u s u a l h ar d s h ip . See M art i nez-R osas v. G on zales , 424 F . 3d 926, 930 ( 9th C i r . 2005) . W e a r e not p er su ad ed th at P en a- S an ch ez ’s re m o v al re su lt s in th e d ep riv atio n o f h is ch il d re n ’s r ig h ts . Se e U

r b a n o D e M

a la lu a n v . I

NS , 57 7 F . 2d 58 9, 59 4 (9th C i r. 19 78 ). W e r e je c t P e n a - S an c h e z ’s c o n te n tio n th e B I A e n g a g e din im p e rm is s ib le f a c t- f in d in g . See 8 C . F . R . § 1 0 0 3 . 1 ( d ) ( 3 ) ( i i ) ( B I A m ayr e v i e w qu e s t i o n s o f l aw, di sc re t i on , and j ud gem entde no vo ). T h e a g e n c yd e c lin e dto e n te rta in P e n a - S an c h e z ’s m o tio n to r e o p e n to c ons i de ra ddi t i ona l e vi de nc e i n s upportof hi s c anc e l l a t i on of

r e m ova l appl i c a t i on w i thoutthe be ne f

i tof ourde c i s i on i n Ferna ndes v. H older , 619 F . 3d 1069, 1074 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 0 ) ( “[ T ]h e I J ’s ju r is d ic tio n o n r e m an df r o m th e B I A is lim ite do n ly w he n the B I A e xpr e s s l yr e t a i ns j ur i s di c t i on and qua l i f i e s orl i m i t s the s c ope of the r e m a n dto as p e c if

ic p u rp o s e .” ) . Se e a l

s o Ma t te ro

f M- D- , 224 I . & N . D e c . 138, 1 4 1 - 4 2 ( B I A 2 0 0 7 ) ( I Jh a s au th o r ityto c o n s id e ra d d itio n a l e v id e n c e o n r e m an d“if i ti s m a t e r i a l , w a s notpr e vi ous l ya va i l abl e , a nd c oul d notha ve be e n di s c ove r e d or06- 72049 3 pr e s e nt e d a tthe f

orm e rhe ar i ng. ” ) . W e the r e f or e r e m and f

orpr oc e e di ngs c o n s is te n t w ith th is d is p o s itio n . E a c h p artys h a l l b e ari t s o wn c o s t s f o rth i s p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. PETI TI O N FO R R EVI EW D I SM I SSED i n pa r t ; D EN I ED i n pa r t ; a nd GR AN T E D i n p a r t ; RE MAND E D.