Case Name: Zoltan LACZY, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-05-02
Citations: 276 F. App'x 655
Docket Number: No. 06-74337
Parties: Zoltan LACZY, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 276
Pages: 655–656

Head Matter:
Zoltan LACZY, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-74337.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 22, 2008.
Filed May 2, 2008.
Zoltán Laczy, pro se.
CAS-District Counsel, San Diego, CA, Kurt B. Larson, Stacy S. Paddack, Oil, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Michael B. Mukasey is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Zoltán Laczy, a native and citizen of Hungary, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision vacating an immigration judge's grant of cancellation of removal on the basis that even though Laczy was statutorily eligible for relief, he did not deserve a favorable exercise of discretion. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part.
Laczy contends that he deserved a favorable exercise of discretion because he has not been convicted of any crime. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) deprives us of jurisdiction to review the Board's discretionary determination. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir .2005).
Laczy also contends that the Board denied him equal protection and due process. He does not explain how he was denied these rights and therefore has not presented a colorable constitutional claim. See id. at 930.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.