Case Name: Martha VALDEZ-GOMEZ, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-06-10
Citations: 571 F. App'x 317
Docket Number: No. 13-60610
Parties: Martha VALDEZ-GOMEZ, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 571
Pages: 317–318

Head Matter:
Martha VALDEZ-GOMEZ, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-60610
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 10, 2014.
Anthony Matulewiez, Esq., Matulewicz & Associates, McAllen, TX, for Petitioner.
Elizabeth D. Kurlan, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Tangerlia Cox, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Martha Valdez-Gomez, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks a petition for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge's (IJ) denial of her application for cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. She asserts that the BIA abused its discretion in agreeing with the IJ's hardship determination regarding the effect that her removal would have on her children who are United States citizens.
We generally review only the BIA's decision except to the extent that the IJ's decision influences the BIA. Zhu v. Gonzales, 493 F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir.2007). With respect to the determination that Gomez-Valdez failed to demonstrate that her children would suffer an "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" as required under § 1229b(b)(l), Gomez-Valdez does not raise any constitutional issues or purely legal questions,- and her argument amounts to little more than a disagreement with the weighing and consideration of the relevant factors by the IJ and the BIA; therefore, we lack jurisdiction to review this purely discretionary decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Sung v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 372, 377 (5th Cir.2007); Bravo v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 590, 593 (5th Cir.2003). Accordingly, we DISMISS Valdez-Gomez's petition for review for WANT OF JURISDICTION.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.