Case Name: Ana Rosa CUEVAS TALAVERA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-06
Citations: 361 F. App'x 773
Docket Number: No. 07-70360
Parties: Ana Rosa CUEVAS TALAVERA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 361
Pages: 773–774

Head Matter:
Ana Rosa CUEVAS TALAVERA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-70360.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
Filed Jan. 6, 2010.
Tamiko O. Moore, Law Office of Tamiko O. Moore, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Joan E. Smiley, Esq., Richard M. Evans, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, 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
Ana Rosa Cuevas Talavera, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying her application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ's discretionary determination that Cuevas Talavera lacks the requisite good moral character for cancellation of removal. See Moran v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir.2005) (indicating that a good moral character determination is only reviewable where it is based on one of the statutory exclusions found in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)), overruled on other grounds by Sanchez v. Holder, 560 F.3d 1028 (9th Cir.2009). The IJ's discretionary good moral character determination is dispositive of Cuevas Ta-lavera's application.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.