Case Name: Raul E. MONTERROSA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-01
Citations: 380 F. App'x 733
Docket Number: No. 07-74078
Parties: Raul E. MONTERROSA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 380
Pages: 733–733

Head Matter:
Raul E. MONTERROSA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-74078.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 25, 2010.
Filed June 1, 2010.
William E. Rowen, Esquire, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Susan K. Houser, Esquire, DOJ — U.S. Department Of Justice Civil Division/Office Of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Raul E. Monterrosa, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's order of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, including due process claims, Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's discretionary denial of Monterrosa's application for relief under section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii); Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 923 (9th Cir.2007) ("Discretionary decisions, including whether or not to grant § 212(c) relief, are not reviewable.").
Monterrosa's contention that the BIA applied an incorrect legal standard in adjudicating his application for section 212(c) relief is not persuasive. His remaining contentions regarding agency bias are not supported by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.