Case Name: Francisco FIGUERO-PEREZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-20
Citations: 227 F. App'x 713
Docket Number: No. 05-77157
Parties: Francisco FIGUERO-PEREZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 227
Pages: 713–714

Head Matter:
Francisco FIGUERO-PEREZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-77157.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007 .
Filed April 20, 2007.
Philippe M. Dwelshauvers, Esq., Fresno, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Paul Fiorino, Esq., Sada Manickam, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Francisco Figuero-Perez seeks review-of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding an immigration judge's ("IJ") order denying his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ's discretionary determination that FigueroPerez failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003).
Figuero-Perez's contention that his removal would violate due process by infringing on family unity is unavailing. See Urbano de Malaluan v. INS, 577 F.2d 589, 594 (9th Cir.1978); see also Mamanee v. INS, 566 F.2d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir.1977).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.