Case Name: Roberto FERNANDEZ-FIGUEROA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-15
Citations: 225 F. App'x 530
Docket Number: No. 05-74933
Parties: Roberto FERNANDEZ-FIGUEROA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 225
Pages: 530–530

Head Matter:
Roberto FERNANDEZ-FIGUEROA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-74933.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2007.
Filed March 15, 2007.
Albert M. Sterwerf, Esq., Irvine, 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, Joan E. Smiley, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Roberto Fernandez-Figueroa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order adopting and affirming an immigration judge's decision denying Fernandez-Figueroa's application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's discretionary determination that Fernandez-Figueroa failed to establish the requisite exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his United States citizen wife and children, and is therefore ineligible for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). Further, Fernandez-Figueroa has failed to raise a colorable constitutional claim to invoke our jurisdiction over this petition for review. See id.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.