Case Name: Mario HERNANDEZ ORTIZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-21
Citations: 362 F. App'x 809
Docket Number: No. 07-72078
Parties: Mario HERNANDEZ ORTIZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 362
Pages: 809–810

Head Matter:
Mario HERNANDEZ ORTIZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-72078.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
Filed Jan. 21, 2010.
Lamar Peckham, Law Office of Lamar Peckham, Santa Rosa, CA, for Petitioner.
Joshua E. Braunstein, Esquire, Kurt B. Larson, Esquire, OIL, Stacy Stiffel Pad-dack, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Mario Hernandez Ortiz, 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 order denying his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's discretionary determination that Hernandez Ortiz lacked good moral character pursuant to the catch-all provision at 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f). Lopez-Castellanos v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 848, 854 (9th Cir.2006). Because our resolution of this issue is dispositive, we need not reach his constitutional claims regarding the BIA's hardship determination.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.