Case Name: Fernando HERNANDEZ-GUTIERREZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-08-20
Citations: 538 F. App'x 812
Docket Number: No. 09-71124
Parties: Fernando HERNANDEZ-GUTIERREZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 538
Pages: 812–812

Head Matter:
Fernando HERNANDEZ-GUTIERREZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-71124.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 1, 2013.
Filed Aug. 20, 2013.
John Martin Pope, Pope & Associates, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
Patrick James Glen, Esquire, OIL, Nicole N. Murley, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: GRABER, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, 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
Fernando Hernandez-Gutierrez and his family, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's order denying their applications for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's discretionary determination that Petitioners failed to establish that qualifying relatives would experience exceptional and extremely unusual hardship upon their removal. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir.2005).
Petitioners do not challenge the denial of their applications for voluntary departure. Petitioners' challenge to 8 C.F.R. § 1240.26(i) is foreclosed by Garfias-Rodriguez v. Holder, 702 F.3d 504, 523-28 (9th Cir.2012) (en banc).
We do not consider whether lead Petitioner established good moral character because his failure to establish the requisite hardship is dispositive. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.