Case Name: QUA VAN LE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-28
Citations: 440 F. App'x 567
Docket Number: No. 09-73745
Parties: QUA VAN LE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 440
Pages: 567–568

Head Matter:
QUA VAN LE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-73745.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2011.
Filed June 28, 2011.
Saad Ahmad, Fremont, CA, for Petitioner.
Tracey McDonald, Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, 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
Qua Van Le, a native and citizen of Vietnam, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo due process claims, and for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir.2005). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider the BIA's denial of Le's motion to reopen the discretionary denial of cancellation of removal. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 601 (9th Cir.2006). Le's claim that the BIA did not issue a decision that fully explains the reasons for denying his motion to reopen is foreclosed by this determination. See id. at 603-04.
Le's contention that the Board did not consider the evidence he submitted fails because he has not "overcome the presumption that the BIA did review the record." Id. at 603.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.