P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR
. R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR
. R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 60523 Su m m ar y Cal endar

SO N IA ZAVA LA

- M O RA LE S P et i t i on er

v. ERI C H H OLD ER, J R, U S ATTORN EY GE N ERA L Res po nde nt

Pet i t i o n f

o rRev i e w o f

a n Ord e ro f

t he B o a r do f Im m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls B IAN o. A 78 987 512

B ef ore W IE N E R , ST E W A R T , an d C L E M E N T , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * S on i a Z ava l a- M oral es, a na t ive an d ci t i zen of M exi co, seek s a peti t i on f or revi ew of

an ord e r o f the B oard of I m m i grati on A pp eal s ( B IA) den yi n g h er appl i c at i on f

orhar dshi p c ance l l at i on o f r em ovalpurs uant t o 8 U

. S. C

. § 1229b. W e d is m is s th e p e tit io n in p a r t fo rla c ko f ju r is d ic tio n a n dd e n yth e p e tit io n in p a rt. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 4, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 60523

2 W e g e ne r all y r e vi e w only t he B IA’ s dec i s i o n ex c e ptt o t he e xt e ntt hatt he d e c is io n o f th e im m ig r a tio n ju d g e (IJ ) in flu e n c e s th e B IA

. Mi k h a e lv . I NS , 115 F. 3d 29 9, 30 2 ( 5t h Ci r . 19 97 )

. W e m ay r e vi e w t he I J’ s de c i s i o n i n t h e i n st ant
c a s e b e c a u s e th e B I Aa d o p te dit. S e eCh u n v . I NS , 40 F

. 3d76, 78 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 9 4 ).W e l ac k j uri sdi c t i on t o r evi ew t he I J’ s di scret i onar y de t er m i nat i on t hat Zaval a- M or al es fai l ed t o de m ons t r at e the “ exc ept i onaland ex t r em ely unusual h a r d s h ip ” r e q u ir e dfo rca n c e lla tio n o f r e m o v a lu n d e r§ 1 2 2 9 b

. S ee 8 U. S

. C. § 1 2 5 2 (a )(2 )(B )(i); S u ng v. K ei sler , 5 0 5 F .3 d3 7 2 , 3 7 7 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ); R u ed a v. A sh cr oft , 3 80 F. 3d831 , 831 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 4)

. W e r ej e c tZa va l a- M o r al e s ’ s a t t e m pt t o c l as s i f

y he rdi s ag r e e m e ntw i t h t he w e i ghi ng andc o ns i de r at i o n o f t he r e l e va nt fa c to r s b yth e IJ a s a n is s u e o f c o n s tit u t i o n a l d im e n s io n . SeeHadw aniv. G on zales , 445 F

. 3d798 , 801 ( 5th C i r. 200 6)

. To the extent th at Zava l a- M oral es c h a l l e n g e s t h e d i s c r e t i o n a r y d e n i a l o f h e r r e q u e s t f o rc a n c e l l a t i o n o f

r e mo v a l , we di s m i s s he rpe t i t i o n f o rw anto f

j ur i s di c t i o n. Z ava l a- M oral es’ s c l ai m t h at her du e p roces s r i gh t s w ere vi ol ated becau se t h e I J exh ibi t ed bias aga i n sther i s un ava i l i n g. O u r r evi ew of t h e rec ord does not show t h at th e I J h el d a “personal bi as” aga i n st Z ava l a- M oral es t h at aros e f rom an “ ext r aj udi c i als our c e” or t hat t he I J’ s c onductdem ons t r at ed “ pervas ive bi as a n dpr ejud i ce.” S e e Ma t t e rof Ex a me , 1 8 I & N D e c. 3 0 3 , 3 0 6 (B IA1 9 8 2 ). Z ava l a- M oral es’ s bi as cl ai m l acks m eri t , an d w e den y h er peti t i on f or r evi ew on t h i s i ssue. D IS M IS S E D IN P A R T F O R LA C KO F JU R IS D IC T IO N ; D E N IE D IN PART.