Case Name: Felix HERNANDEZ-ARROYO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-19
Citations: 671 F. App'x 603
Docket Number: No. 15-71206
Parties: Felix HERNANDEZ-ARROYO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAYY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 603–604

Head Matter:
Felix HERNANDEZ-ARROYO, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 15-71206
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 14, 2016
Filed December 19, 2016
Nicholas W. Marchi, Carney & Marchi, PS, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner
Matthew B. George, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
Before: WALLACE, LEAYY, 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
Felix Hernandez-Arroyo, 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 decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's discretionary determination that Hernán-dez-Arroyo 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).
Hernandez-Arroyo's contentions that the BIA applied an incorrect legal standard, considered facts not in the record, failed to show proper consideration of all factors, and failed to address all issues raised on appeal are not supported by the record. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency need not "write an exegesis on every contention" (internal citation omitted)).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
xhiS disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,