Case Name: Gilberto MORALES-SANTOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-02-13
Citations: 507 F. App'x 746
Docket Number: No. 11-71169
Parties: Gilberto MORALES-SANTOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 507
Pages: 746–747

Head Matter:
Gilberto MORALES-SANTOS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-71169.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 11, 2013.
Filed Feb. 13, 2013.
Gilberto Morales-Santos, Seattle, WA, pro se.
Virginia Lum, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, 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
Gilberto Morales-Santos, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations. Vilchez v. Holder, 682 F.3d 1195, 1198 (9th Cir.2012). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's discretionary determination that Morales-Santos failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relatives. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005). Morales-Santos' contention that he was prevented from reasonably presenting his case is not supported by the record and does not present a colorable claim that establishes our jurisdiction. See id.
Morales-Santos' contention that his case warranted review by a three-member panel of the BIA is unavailing. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(6).
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.