Case Name: Angela DUARTE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-28
Citations: 424 F. App'x 680
Docket Number: No. 09-70934
Parties: Angela DUARTE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 424
Pages: 680–680

Head Matter:
Angela DUARTE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-70934.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2011.
Filed March 28, 2011.
Stephen Shaiken, Law Office of Stephen Shaiken, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Jeffrey Ronald Meyer, Esquire, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Angela Duarte, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order sustaining the government's appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision granting her application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir.2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Contrary to Duarte's contention, the BIA properly reviewed the IJ's hardship determination de novo. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3) (ii). It follows that Duarte's due process claim fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir.2000) (requiring error for a petitioner to prevail on a due process claim).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's discretionary determination that Duarte 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.