Case Name: Roberto Monroy DE LA FUENTE, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-09-23
Citations: 530 F. App'x 611
Docket Number: No. 12-3192
Parties: Roberto Monroy DE LA FUENTE, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
Judges: Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 530
Pages: 611–611

Head Matter:
Roberto Monroy DE LA FUENTE, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.
No. 12-3192.
United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 3, 2013.
Filed: Sept. 23, 2013.
Timothy E. Wichmer, Wichmer & Gro-neck, Saint Louis, MO, for Petitioner.
Kevin J. Conway, Karen Yolanda Drum-mond, Richard M. Evans, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Roberto Monroy De La Fuente (Mon-roy), a citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which upheld an immigration judge's denial of cancellation of removal. We conclude that Monro/s arguments regarding the BIA's discretionary determination that he failed to prove the requisite hardship to his qualifying relatives, for purposes of cancellation of removal, are unreviewable, see Za-carias-Velasquez v. Mukasey, 509 F.3d 429, 434 (8th Cir.2007) (under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), this court lacks jurisdiction to review denial of cancellation of removal for failure to prove exceptional and extremely unusual hardship); Guled v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 872, 880 (8th Cir.2008) (petitioner's argument that BIA applied incorrect legal standard by failing to adequately consider certain factors in denying cancellation of removal essentially challenged adverse discretionary conclusion and did not present reviewable question of law), and that Monroy's other arguments are unavailing, see Sanchez-Velasco v. Holder, 593 F.3d 733, 737 (8th Cir.2010) (no right to due process in purely discretionary remedy of cancellation of removal).
Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.