Case Name: Luis Manuel VALADEZ-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-28
Citations: 265 F. App'x 613
Docket Number: No. 05-73256
Parties: Luis Manuel VALADEZ-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 265
Pages: 613–614

Head Matter:
Luis Manuel VALADEZ-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-73256.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 14, 2008.
Filed Jan. 28, 2008.
Brian D. Lerner, Esq., Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner, Long Beach, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, William C. Erb, Jr., Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: HALL, O’SCANNLAIN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Luis Manuel Valadez-Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denying his application for relief under former section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, 468 F.3d 1159, 1163 (9th Cir.2006). We dismiss the petition for review in part and deny it in part.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's discretionary decision to deny Valadez-Lopez former section 212(c) relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii); Ramadan v. Gonzales, 479 F.3d 646, 654 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam) (stating that the REAL ID Act "does not restore jurisdiction over discretionary determinations").
We are unpersuaded by Valadez-Lopez's contention that the BIA made impermissible factual findings in his case. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(i)-(ii).
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.