Case Name: Armando AGUILAR-ZUNIGA, a.k.a. Armando Aguilar, a.k.a. Pedro Gonzalez-Martinez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-01
Citations: 540 F. App'x 745
Docket Number: No. 12-71565
Parties: Armando AGUILAR-ZUNIGA, a.k.a. Armando Aguilar, a.k.a. Pedro Gonzalez-Martinez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 540
Pages: 745–745

Head Matter:
Armando AGUILAR-ZUNIGA, a.k.a. Armando Aguilar, a.k.a. Pedro Gonzalez-Martinez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-71565.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 24, 2013.
Filed Oct. 1, 2013.
Pieter Daniel Speyer, Esquire, Law Office of Pieter Speyer, La Jolla, CA, for Petitioner.
OIL, Virginia Lum, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, 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
Armando Aguilar-Zuniga, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations. Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's discretionary determination that Aguilar-Zuniga failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relatives. See id.
We reject Aguilar-Zuniga's contention that the agency's decision violated his children's due process rights. See Urbano de Malaluan v. INS, 577 F.2d 589, 594 (9th Cir.1978); see also Morales-Izquierdo v. DHS, 600 F.3d 1076, 1091 (9th Cir.2010) (holding that "lawfully denying [the alien parent immigration relief] does not violate any of his or his family's substantive rights protected by the Due Process Clause").
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.