Case Name: Tomasso GUERRINI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-10-15
Citations: 483 F. App'x 388
Docket Number: No. 06-75820
Parties: Tomasso GUERRINI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 483
Pages: 388–389

Head Matter:
Tomasso GUERRINI, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-75820.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 9, 2012.
Filed Oct. 15, 2012.
David R. Denis, Esq., World Trade Center, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, 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
Tomasso Guerrini, a native and citizen of Italy, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reconsider. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of Guerrini's motion to reconsider the discretionary denial of his application for adjustment of status, where he has not raised a colorable due process challenge to the discretionary determination. See Bazua-Cota v. Gonzales, 466 F.3d 747, 748-49 (9th Cir.2006) (per curiam) (order) ("[T]he decision to deny Petitioner's application for adjustment of status is a discretionary determination, and is therefore unreviewable."); Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir.2012) ("[Wjhere Congress explicitly withdraws our jurisdiction to review a final order of deportation, our authority to review motions to reconsider or to reopen deportation proceedings is thereby likewise withdrawn." (citation omitted)).
Guerrini's remaining contentions are unavailing or unexhausted. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.