Case Name: Rosario SIMON, a.k.a. Rosario Angela Plurad, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-08-20
Citations: 539 F. App'x 717
Docket Number: No. 10-73461
Parties: Rosario SIMON, a.k.a. Rosario Angela Plurad, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GRABER, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 539
Pages: 717–718

Head Matter:
Rosario SIMON, a.k.a. Rosario Angela Plurad, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-73461.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 1, 2013.
Filed Aug. 20, 2013.
Dominic Edward Capeci, I, Esquire, Law Offices of Kaiser and Capeci, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Karen Y. Stewart, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GRABER, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, 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
Rosario Simon, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying her application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
The BIA denied cancellation on two alternative grounds. The first is a discretionary conclusion that Petitioner failed to demonstrate good moral character on account of a fraudulent marriage, entered into so as to procure immigration benefits for Petitioner's daughter. We lack jurisdiction to review that determination. See Lopez-Castellanos v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 848, 854 (9th Cir.2006). We therefore need not reach the second ground, in which the BIA found her statutorily barred from establishing good moral character.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.