Case Name: Terence John FINCH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-16
Citations: 387 F. App'x 800
Docket Number: No. 08-71291
Parties: Terence John FINCH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 387
Pages: 800–801

Head Matter:
Terence John FINCH, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-71291.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 29, 2010.
Filed July 16, 2010.
Nicole Hope Nelson, Nelson Smith, LLP, Portland, OR, for Petitioner.
Corey Leigh Farrell, Terri Jane Sca-dron, Assistant Director, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, 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
Terence John Finch, a native and citizen of England, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for cancellation of removal and denying his motion to remand. 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 BIA's discretionary determination that Finch 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).
The evidence Finch presented with his motion to remand concerned the same basic hardship grounds as his application for cancellation of removal. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 602-03 (9th Cir.2006). We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's discretionary determination that the evidence was insufficient to establish a prima facie case of hardship. See id. at 601.
Finch's remaining contentions are unavailing.
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.