Case Name: Hector ESTRADA-LAMPAYAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-30
Citations: 360 F. App'x 928
Docket Number: No. 06-72048
Parties: Hector ESTRADA-LAMPAYAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 360
Pages: 928–929

Head Matter:
Hector ESTRADA-LAMPAYAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-72048.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
Filed Dec. 30, 2009.
James R. Patterson, Esquire, Law Office of Lilia S. Velasquez, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
CAS-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Melissa Neiman-Kelt-ing, Esquire, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, 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
Hector Estrada-Lampayas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Estrada-Lampayas' contention that the IJ failed to consider the possibility of hardship caused by familial separation is not supported by the record. To the extent that Estrada-Lampayas contends that the agency abused its discretion by improperly weighing the hardships in this ease or by misapplying the facts to the applicable law, we lack jurisdiction. See Figueroa v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 487, 494-95 (9th Cir.2008) (court lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary hardship determination).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.