Case Name: Rodimiro Bernal FREGOSO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-16
Citations: 185 F. App'x 619
Docket Number: No. 04-76222
Parties: Rodimiro Bernal FREGOSO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KLEINFELD, PAEZ and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 185
Pages: 619–620

Head Matter:
Rodimiro Bernal FREGOSO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-76222.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 12, 2006.
Decided June 16, 2006.
Frank P. Sprouls, Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Terri J. Scadron, Esq., Genevieve Holm, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: KLEINFELD, PAEZ and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Rodimiro Bernal Fregoso, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's order denying his application for cancellation of removal. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo purely legal questions, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir.2003), and we deny the petition for review.
Bernal Fregoso's contention that the agency misinterpreted the hardship standard is without merit, because its interpretation fell within the broad range of acceptable interpretations authorized by statute. See Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir.2003).
We do not consider whether Bernal Fregoso established ten years of continuous physical presence, because his failure to establish the requisite hardship is dispositive. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 889 (9th Cir.2003) (noting that an applicant must establish continuous physical presence, good moral character and hardship to qualify for relief).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.