Case Name: Edmundo ZUNIGA-ALDAMA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-11-16
Citations: 487 F. App'x 381
Docket Number: No. 10-72267
Parties: Edmundo ZUNIGA-ALDAMA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 487
Pages: 381–381

Head Matter:
Edmundo ZUNIGA-ALDAMA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-72267.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 13, 2012.
Filed Nov. 16, 2012.
John Martin Pope, Pope & Associates, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
OIL, Lisa Damiano, Trial, DOJ-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: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Edmundo Zuniga-Aldama, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Vilchez v. Holder, 682 F.3d 1195, 1198 (9th Cir.2012), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's discretionary determination that Zuni-ga-Aldama failed to demonstrate exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).
Zuniga-Aldama has failed to establish any legal error in the IJ's consideration of the evaluation from his medical expert.
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.