Case Name: Juan ENRIQUEZ-RAMOS, Petitioner v. Michael B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-15
Citations: 303 F. App'x 177
Docket Number: No. 07-60919
Parties: Juan ENRIQUEZ-RAMOS, Petitioner v. Michael B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 303
Pages: 177–177

Head Matter:
Juan ENRIQUEZ-RAMOS, Petitioner v. Michael B. MUKASEY, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-60919
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 15, 2008.
Orlando Mondragon, El Paso, TX, for Petitioner.
Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Norah Aseoli Schwarz, Don George Scroggin, Ada Elsie Bosque, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC, Guadalupe R. Gonzales, Immigration & Customs Enforcement Chief Counsel’s Office, El Paso, TX, for Respondent.
Before DAVIS, GARZA, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Juan Enriquez-Ramos, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the Immigration Judge's denial of his application for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. Because cancellation of removal is governed by § 1229b, the jurisdictional bar of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) applies in the instant case.
This court lacks jurisdiction to review the Attorney General's discretionary decision regarding cancellation of removal, see Rueda v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 831, 831 (5th Cir.2004), unless the appeal involves constitutional claims or questions of law. See § 1229b(b); § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Despite his contentions to the contrary, EnriquezRamos's appeal does not involve a constitutional claim or a question of law. Therefore, this court does not have jurisdiction to review this claim. See Sung v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 372, 377 (5th Cir.2007).
Accordingly, the petition for review is DISMISSED for lack 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.