Case Name: Axel Arnulfo DONIS-ALEGRIA, aka John Doe, aka Louis Ramirez, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-16
Citations: 682 F. App'x 589
Docket Number: No. 15-72106
Parties: Axel Arnulfo DONIS-ALEGRIA, aka John Doe, aka Louis Ramirez, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 682
Pages: 589–589

Head Matter:
Axel Arnulfo DONIS-ALEGRIA, aka John Doe, aka Louis Ramirez, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 15-72106
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2017
Filed March 16, 2017
Jerry Wolf Stuchiner, Attorney, Paladin-law, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner
Margaret Anne O’Donnell, Trial Attorney, 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: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, 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
Axel Arnulfo Donis-Alegria, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's discretionary determination that Don-is-Alegria failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). Donis-Alegria's contention that the agency erred in not conducting a future-oriented hardship analysis is not supported by the record and does not amount to a colorable claim that would invoke our jurisdiction. See id. (absent a colorable constitutional claim or question of law, the court lacks jurisdiction to review the agency's discretionary hardship determination).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3,