Case Name: Gustavo Rafael RIVERA-RENDON, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-01-16
Citations: 505 F. App'x 639
Docket Number: No. 11-72931
Parties: Gustavo Rafael RIVERA-RENDON, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 505
Pages: 639–640

Head Matter:
Gustavo Rafael RIVERA-RENDON, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-72931.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 15, 2013.
Filed Jan. 16, 2013.
Holly Stafford Cooper, Esquire, UC Davis Law School Immigration, Davis, CA, for Petitioner.
Lisa Morinelli, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, 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
Gustavo Rafael Rivera-Rendon, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for adjustment of status. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's discretionary denial of adjustment of status and Rivera-Rendon does not raise a colorable due process challenge to the BIA's dispositive discretionary determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Bazua-Cota v. Gonzales, 466 F.3d 747, 748-49 (9th Cir.2006).
Rivera-Rendon's remaining contentions are not properly before us because they concern portions of the immigration judge's decision that the BIA did not rely upon. See Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820, 829 (9th Cir.2011) (review is limited to the grounds relied upon by the BIA).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.