Case Name: Edmund DUDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-04-18
Citations: 515 F. App'x 690
Docket Number: No. 08-73585
Parties: Edmund DUDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, O’SCANNLAIN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 515
Pages: 690–691

Head Matter:
Edmund DUDA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-73585.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2013.
Filed April 18, 2013.
Christopher John Stender, Esquire, Immigration Practice Group A Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Gregory Michael Kelch, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, Dc, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, O’SCANNLAIN, 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
Edmund Duda petitions for review of the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge's denial of his application for a waiver of inadmissibility and adjustment of status. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), and we dismiss in part and deny in part Duda's petition for review.
1. We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of § 212(c) relief. See Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 923 (9th Cir.2007) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)). In three separate orders, the BIA concluded that Duda did not merit a favorable exercise of discretion, therefore he was ineligible for a § 212(c) waiver. Duda does not challenge the BIA's denial on any constitutional or legal grounds. Nor does he assert that the BIA failed to balance all the favorable and unfavorable factors when determining whether he was entitled to relief under former § 212(c). See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829, 833 (9th Cir.2011). Thus, we lack jurisdiction to reconsider the BIA's discretionary decision to deny § 212(c) relief. Because we lack jurisdiction, we need not address the merits of the remaining issues related to the § 212(c) waiver raised on appeal as those issues are moot.
2. Duda is also ineligible for adjustment of status as a refugee under 8 U.S.C. § 1159. Assuming exhaustion, because Duda adjusted his status to that of a legal permanent resident, he is no longer eligible for adjustment of status as a refugee. See Robleto-Pastora v. Holder, 591 F.3d 1051, 1059-60 (9th Cir.2010); Matter of S-I-K-, 24 I. & N. Dec. 324, 330 (BIA 2007).
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.
. In light of the foregoing disposition, Duda's Motion to Remand filed March 17, 2013 is denied.