Case Name: Reynaldo AYON-NUNEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-12-21
Citations: 501 F. App'x 647
Docket Number: No. 10-73236
Parties: Reynaldo AYON-NUNEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 501
Pages: 647–647

Head Matter:
Reynaldo AYON-NUNEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-73236.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
Filed Dec. 21, 2012.
Judith Seeds Miller, Law Office of David Neumeister, Bakersfield, CA, for Petitioner.
Chief Counsel ICE, OIL, Dara Smith, Trial, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, 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
Reynaldo Ayon-Nunez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of Ayon-Nunez's motion to reopen the discretionary denial of his application for adjustment of status, where the BIA concluded that the new evidence he submitted was insufficient to overcome the significant negative factor in his case and Ayon-Nunez has not raised a colorable due process challenge to the BIA's discretionary determination that he is not entitled to adjustment of status. See Bazua-Cota v. Gonzales, 466 F.3d 747, 748-49 (9th Cir.2006) (per curiam) (order) ("[T]he decision to deny Petitioner's application for adjustment of status is a discretionary determination, and is therefore unreviewable."); see Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 601-03 (9th Cir.2006) (where there has already been an unreviewable discretionary determination this court lacks jurisdiction to review the denial of a motion to reopen concerning the same determination).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Ayon-Nunez's remaining contentions.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.