Case Name: Daniel Rene FUENTES-CENTENO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-31
Citations: 372 F. App'x 820
Docket Number: No. 07-73331
Parties: Daniel Rene FUENTES-CENTENO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 372
Pages: 820–820

Head Matter:
Daniel Rene FUENTES-CENTENO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-73331.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 16, 2010.
Filed March 31, 2010.
Alejandro Garcia, Esquire, City of Commerce, CA, for Petitioner.
Susan Houser, John J.W. Inkeles, Esquire, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, 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
Daniel Rene Fuentes-Centeno, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for relief under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997 ("NACARA"). We dismiss the petition for review.
The agency determined that Fuentes-Centeno failed to establish eligibility for relief under NACARA because he did not prove his continuous physical presence in United States commenced prior to December 1,1995. We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's determination. See NA-CARA, Pub.L. No. 105-100, § 202(f), 111 Stat. 2160, 2196 (Nov. 19, 1997) ("A determination by the Attorney General as to whether the status of an alien should be adjusted under this section is final and shall not be subject to review by any court.").
The agency denied Fuentes-Centeno voluntary departure as a matter of discretion. We lack jurisdiction to review such discretionary determinations. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Galeana-Mendoza v. Gonzales, 465 F.3d 1054, 1056 n. 5 (9th Cir.2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.