Case Name: Luis Aurelio VALDIVIA-AVILA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-09-29
Citations: 333 F. App'x 262
Docket Number: No. 06-72240
Parties: Luis Aurelio VALDIVIA-AVILA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 333
Pages: 262–263

Head Matter:
Luis Aurelio VALDIVIA-AVILA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-72240.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 14, 2009.
Filed Sept. 29, 2009.
Antonio Reyna Salazar, Esq., Adolfo Ojeda-Casimiro, Esq., Salazar Law Offices, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service Office of the District Counsel, Mark C. Walters, Esq., Anh-Thu P. Mai, Esq., Melissa Neiman-Kelting, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Luis Aurelio Valdivia-Avila, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") order denying his application for adjustment of status. We dismiss the appeal.
We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ's discretionary denial of Valdivia-Avila's application for adjustment of status. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Bazua-Cota v. Gonzales, 466 F.3d 747, 748 (9th Cir.2006) (per curiam). Valdivia-Avila's contention that the IJ improperly weighed the evidence in his case does not present a color-able constitutional claim or question of law over which this court may exercise jurisdiction. See Bazua-Cota, 466 F.3d at 749.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.