Case Name: Fortino CHOLULA-RIOS, a.k.a. Fortinio Rios Cholula, a.k.a. Leonardo Cholula, a.k.a. Leopold Fortino Cholula, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-11-19
Citations: 404 F. App'x 146
Docket Number: No. 09-73718
Parties: Fortino CHOLULA-RIOS, a.k.a. Fortinio Rios Cholula, a.k.a. Leonardo Cholula, a.k.a. Leopold Fortino Cholula, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 404
Pages: 146–146

Head Matter:
Fortino CHOLULA-RIOS, a.k.a. Fortinio Rios Cholula, a.k.a. Leonardo Cholula, a.k.a. Leopold Fortino Cholula, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-73718.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.
Filed Nov. 19, 2010.
Fortino Cholula-Rios, Eloy, AZ, pro se.
OIL, David H. Wetmore, 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: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, 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
Fortino Cholula-Rios, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") removal order. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's discretionary denial of Cholula-Rios's cancellation of removal application. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Bermudez v. Holder, 586 F.3d 1167, 1169 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam). Cholula-Rios's challenge to the IJ's weighing of the evidence is not a legal argument that confers jurisdiction.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.