Case Name: Miguel PEREZ-TORRES, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-04
Citations: 266 F. App'x 514
Docket Number: No. 05-70253
Parties: Miguel PEREZ-TORRES, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, HALL and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 266
Pages: 514–515

Head Matter:
Miguel PEREZ-TORRES, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-70253.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Nov. 7, 2007.
Filed Jan. 4, 2008.
Frank P. Sprouls, Esq., Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, Dylan Bradley Carp, Esq., Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Patricia A. Smith, Esq., Christopher P. McGreal, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, HALL and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Miguel Perez-Torres petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' discretionary determination that he failed to satisfy the "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" requirement for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). We have explicitly held that this court lacks jurisdiction to review a discretionary hardship determination under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 888 (9th Cir.2003).
Petitioner fails to raise any credible argument that would require us to resolve the question we left open in Romero-Torres. See Id. at 891 n. 5.
We DISMISS the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.