Case Name: Gilberto GOMEZ-COTA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-30
Citations: 398 F. App'x 197
Docket Number: No. 08-73289
Parties: Gilberto GOMEZ-COTA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 398
Pages: 197–197

Head Matter:
Gilberto GOMEZ-COTA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-73289.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
Filed Sept. 30, 2010.
Philippe Dwelshauvers, Esquire, Fresno, CA, for Petitioner.
OIL, Leslie McKay, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. 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
Gilberto Gomez-Cota, 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 decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Gomez-Cota's contention that the BIA's order was inadequate fails because the BIA order contained "a statement of its reasons for denying [Gomez-Cota] relief adequate for us to conduct our review." See Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1430 (9th Cir.1995).
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's discretionary determination that Gomez-Cota failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.