Case Name: Humberto CUENCA, Petitioner, v. Jeff B. SESSIONS, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-22
Citations: 677 F. App'x 444
Docket Number: No. 15-72032
Parties: Humberto CUENCA, Petitioner, v. Jeff B. SESSIONS, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 677
Pages: 444–445

Head Matter:
Humberto CUENCA, Petitioner, v. Jeff B. SESSIONS, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 15-72032
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted February 14, 2017
Filed February 22, 2017
Delfino Varela, Attorney, The Law Office of Delfino Varela, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner
Joseph Anthony O’Connell, OIL, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, 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
Humberto Cuenca, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for special rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act ("NACARA"). We dismiss the petition for review.
To the extent Cuenca meaningfully challenges the agency's decision to deny his application for NACARA relief, we lack jurisdiction to review the agency's adverse credibility determination and its determination that Cuenca is not eligible for NACARA relief. See Ixcot v. Holder, 646 F.3d 1202, 1213-14 (9th Cir. 2011). (the court is precluded from' reviewing agency's factual determination that alien is ineligible for special rule cancellation of removal under NACARA).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.