Case Name: Arthur Agustin SERVITO; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-04-27
Citations: 96 F. App'x 507
Docket Number: No. 03-71268
Parties: Arthur Agustin SERVITO; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, RYMER and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 96
Pages: 507–508

Head Matter:
Arthur Agustin SERVITO; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-71268.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 12, 2004.
Decided April 27, 2004.
Cora M. Avinante, Honolulu, HI, for Petitioners.
Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, District Director, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Honolulu, HI, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jeffrey J. Bernstein, Esq., Michael J. Dougherty, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, RYMER and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Arthur Agustín Servito and his children, natives and citizens of the Philippines, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order affirming, without opinion, an immigration judge's denial of Servito's application for waiver of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(H).
We dismiss the petition because we lack jurisdiction to review the purely discretionary decision whether Servito is eligible for waiver of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii); Spencer Enters., Inc. v. United States, 345 F.3d 683, 689-90 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that section 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) bars judicial review over decisions statutorily delegated to the pure discretion of the Attorney General).
Petitioners' contention that the BIA's streamlined decision failed to offer a reasoned explanation is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 850-51 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.