Court Opinion

ID: 8610478
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 08:03:24.202304+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:20.271397
License: Public Domain

MEMORANDUM **
Victor Hugo Jimenez-Godinez petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, see Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary determination that JimenezGodinez 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).
We are not persuaded that JimenezGodinez’s removal results in the deprivation of his children’s rights. See Cabrera-Alvarez v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1006, 1012-13 (9th Cir.2005).
*548Contrary to Jimenez-Godinez’s contention, the IJ’s interpretation of the hardship standard falls within the broad range authorized by the statute. See Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir.2003). Jimenez-Godinez’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.