Case Name: Miguel Angel PEREZ-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-14
Citations: 171 F. App'x 36
Docket Number: No. 02-71152
Parties: Miguel Angel PEREZ-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, BEEZER and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 171
Pages: 36–36

Head Matter:
Miguel Angel PEREZ-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-71152.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2006.
Decided March 14, 2006.
Raul M. Montes, Esq., Montes & Montes, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Executive Office of Immigration Review, Office of Immigration Judge, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland, San Francisco, CA, Cindy S. Ferrier, Office of Immigration Litigation Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, BEEZER and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Miguel Angel Perez-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") order denying his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
Contrary to Perez-Hernandez's contention, Article III of the U.S. Constitution does not permit this court to exercise jurisdiction over his case. Congress defines our jurisdiction over orders of removal. See Duldulao v. INS, 90 F.3d 396, 399-400 (9th Cir.1996) ("This court has jurisdiction to review certain final orders of deportation and exclusion against aliens only because Congress has conferred it."). Congress has eliminated our review over discretionary determinations. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929 (9th Cir. 2005). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over Perez-Hernandez's challenge to the IJ's determination that he did not prove exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. See id.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.