Case Name: Jose Antonio MIRANDA-NAVARETE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-10
Citations: 383 F. App'x 605
Docket Number: No. 08-73743
Parties: Jose Antonio MIRANDA-NAVARETE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 383
Pages: 605–606

Head Matter:
Jose Antonio MIRANDA-NAVARETE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-73743.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 25, 2010.
Filed June 10, 2010.
Xavier Gonzales, Xavier Gonzales, Attorney at Law, P.C., Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Emily Anne Radford, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Jose Antonio Miranda-Navarete, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for a waiver of inadmissibility under § 212(h) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h). We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's determination that Miranda-Navarete failed to establish that denying him admission would result in extreme hardship to his United States citizen mother and children. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 888 (9th Cir.2003) ("[A]n exceptional and extremely unusual hardship determination is a subjective discretionary judgment that has been carved out of our appellate jurisdiction.") (internal quotation marks omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.