Case Name: Wilfredo Ricardo IPARRAGUIRRE-VALDIVIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-25
Citations: 199 F. App'x 615
Docket Number: No. 05-72637
Parties: Wilfredo Ricardo IPARRAGUIRRE-VALDIVIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, REINHARDT, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 199
Pages: 615–616

Head Matter:
Wilfredo Ricardo IPARRAGUIRRE-VALDIVIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-72637.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 21, 2006.
Filed Aug. 25, 2006.
Roni Rotholz, Esq., Law Office of Roni Rogholz, Walnut Creek, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David M. McConnell, Papu Sandhu, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Of fice of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, REINHARDT, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Wilfredo Ricardo Iparraguirre-Valdivia, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision affirming an immigration judge's denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Because we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Iparraguirre-Valdivia's challenge to the agency's discretionary determination that he failed to demonstrate exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relative. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003); Montero-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 277 F.3d 1137, 1144 (9th Cir.2002).
Moreover, Iparraguirre-Valdivia has failed to raise a colorable constitutional or legal claim to invoke our jurisdiction over this petition for review. See Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir. 2001).
Iparraguirre-Valdivia' motion for an extension of time to file a reply brief is denied as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.