Case Name: Francisco Javier BAUTISTA CABRALES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-08-09
Citations: 446 F. App'x 870
Docket Number: No. 10-70964
Parties: Francisco Javier BAUTISTA CABRALES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RYMER, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 446
Pages: 870–871

Head Matter:
Francisco Javier BAUTISTA CABRALES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-70964.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 2, 2011.
Filed Aug. 9, 2011.
Kelechi Charles Emeziem, Esquire, Emeziem & Ogbu LLP, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner.
Lindsay Brooke Glauner, Esquire, Trial, Erica Miles, OIL, 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: RYMER, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, 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
Francisco Javier Bautista Cabrales, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision de nying his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional claims, Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir.2009), and we dismiss in part, and deny in part, the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's discretionary decision to deny Bautista Cabrales's application for cancellation of removal, see De Mercado v. Mukasey, 566 F.3d 810, 814 (9th Cir.2009), and Bautista Cabrales does not contend that this dispos-itive decision suffers from any legal or constitutional defect, see Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).
The proceedings were not "so fundamentally unfair that [Bautista Cabrales] was prevented from reasonably presenting his case." Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000) (citation and quotation omitted).
In light of our disposition, we do not reach Bautista Cabrales's remaining contentions.
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.