Case Name: Noe Pineda DE LEON, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-04-22
Citations: 516 F. App'x 622
Docket Number: No. 10-72343
Parties: Noe Pineda DE LEON, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 516
Pages: 622–622

Head Matter:
Noe Pineda DE LEON, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-72343.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2013.
Filed April 22, 2013.
Noe Pineda De Leon, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
OIL, Jane Tracey Schaffner, 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: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, 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
Noe Pineda De Leon, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his applications for special rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act ("NA-CARA") and for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's determination that Pineda De Leon is not eligible for special rule cancellation of removal under NACARA Section 203. See Lanuza v. Holder, 597 F.3d 970, 972 (9th Cir.2010) (per curiam).
We also lack jurisdiction to review the agency's determination that Pineda De Leon failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relatives. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.