Case Name: Javaid LODHIE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-08-14
Citations: 331 F. App'x 437
Docket Number: No. 06-73070
Parties: Javaid LODHIE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, RYMER, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 331
Pages: 437–438

Head Matter:
Javaid LODHIE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-73070.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 8, 2009.
Aug. 14, 2009.
Samuel W. Asbury, Esq., Gresham, OR, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Portland, OR, Patricia A. Smith, Esq., Thomas Fatouros, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: PREGERSON, RYMER, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Petitioner Javaid Lodhie petitions for review from a final order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denying his request for cancellation of removal.
1. We lack jurisdiction over the petition for review pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) because Petitioner challenges a discretionary decision — the denial of his application for cancellation of removal in the exercise of discretion. We lack jurisdiction to review a decision by the BIA denying an alien's application for cancellation of removal in the exercise of discretion. Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir.2009).
2. Petitioner has not set forth a color-able constitutional claim over which we could otherwise exercise jurisdiction. See id. (holding that "any challenge of an [immigration judge's] discretionary determination must present a colorable claim" in order for this court to exercise jurisdiction (citing Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005))).
PETITION DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.