Case Name: Emilia HERNANDEZ DE QUEVEDO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-13
Citations: 387 F. App'x 721
Docket Number: No. 08-70055
Parties: Emilia HERNANDEZ DE QUEVEDO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 387
Pages: 721–722

Head Matter:
Emilia HERNANDEZ DE QUEVEDO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-70055.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 29, 2010.
Filed July 13, 2010.
Randy Alexander, Esq., Los Angeles, 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, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, 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
Emilia Hernandez De Quevedo, a native of El Salvador and a citizen of El Salvador and Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying her application for relief under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997 ("NACARA"). We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's determination that Hernandez De Quevedo failed to establish eligibility for relief under NACARA. See NACARA, Pub. L. No. 105-100, § 203(a)(1), 111 Stat. 2160, 2196-97 (Nov. 19, 1997); see also Lanuza v. Holder, 597 F.3d 970, 972 (9th Cir.2010) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.