Case Name: Antonio OCAMPO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-15
Citations: 237 F. App'x 248
Docket Number: No. 06-70296
Parties: Antonio OCAMPO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 237
Pages: 248–250

Head Matter:
Antonio OCAMPO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-70296.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 5, 2007 .
Filed June 15, 2007.
Sung Uk Park, Esq., Law Offices of Sung U. Park, Los Angeles, CA, Antonio Ocampo, San Bernardino, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Gladys M. Steffens-Guzman, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Antonio Ocampo seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding an immigration judge's order denying Ocampo's application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary determination that an applicant has failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.2003).
We do not consider Ocampo's contention regarding physical presence because his failure to establish hardship is dispositive.
We are not persuaded that Ocampo's removal results in the deprivation of his children's rights. See Cabrera-Alvarez v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1006, 1012-13 (9th Cir.2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.