Case Name: Eleazar LUNA-SALINAS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-03
Citations: 196 F. App'x 554
Docket Number: Nos. 05-71572, 05-74879
Parties: Eleazar LUNA-SALINAS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 196
Pages: 554–555

Head Matter:
Eleazar LUNA-SALINAS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Nos. 05-71572, 05-74879.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Decided Aug. 3, 2006.
Robert L. Lewis, Esq., Law Office of Robert L. Lewis, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, Esq., Larry P. Cote, Esq., Song Park, Esq., M. Jocelyn Wright, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Eleazar Luna-Salinas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his application for cancellation of removal, and its subsequent order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petitions for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ's discretionary determination that Luna-Salinas failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion to reopen, because the BIA considered the evidence Luna-Salinas submitted and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to warrant reopening. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (The BIA's denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is "arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law.").
We do not consider Luna-Salinas's contentions regarding physical presence, because Luna-Salinas's failure to establish hardship is dispositive.
No. 05-71572: PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
No. 05-74879: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.