Court Opinion

ID: 183166
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-01-21 01:09:04+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:26:02.655806
License: Public Domain

FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            JAN 20 2011

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PABLO PEREZ-ZARATE,                              No. 08-73456

               Petitioner,                       Agency No. A097-760-885

  v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

               Respondent.

                      On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                          Board of Immigration Appeals

                             Submitted January 10, 2011 **

Before:        BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

       Pablo Perez-Zarate, 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. We dismiss the petition for review.

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that

Perez-Zarate 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). We do not address Perez-Zarate’s challenges to findings set forth by the IJ

but not adopted by the BIA. See Brezilien v. Holder, 569 F.3d 403, 411 (9th Cir.

2009) (where the BIA conducts its own review of the evidence and law rather than

adopting the IJ’s decision, our review is limited to the BIA’s decision, except to the

extent that the IJ’s opinion is expressly adopted).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

                                           2                                   08-73456