Case Name: Rogelio GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-24
Citations: 366 F. App'x 820
Docket Number: No. 05-76074
Parties: Rogelio GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 366
Pages: 820–821

Head Matter:
Rogelio GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-76074.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
Filed Feb. 24, 2010.
Alejandro Garcia, Esquire, City of Commerce, CA, for Petitioner.
District Director, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Ann Carroll Varnon, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, 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
Rogelio Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying him relief under former Immigration and Nationality Act § 212(c). We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's dispositive discretionary decision to deny Gonzalez section 212(c) relief, and he does not raise a colorable constitutional claim to overcome this jurisdictional bar. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii); Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 923 (9th Cir.2007) ("Discretionary decisions, including whether or not to grant § 212(c) relief, are not reviewable.").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.