Opinion
No. 07-71965.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Filed December 14, 2009.
Howard J. McClure, Esquire, Howard J. McClure, Esq., Oxnard, CA, for Petitioner.
Katharine Clark, Esquire, Trial, Kevin James Conway, Esquire, Richard M. Evans, Esquire, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A077-355-332.
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Alfredo Melgoza-Ortiz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's discretionary determination that Melgoza-Ortiz 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 consider Melgoza-Ortiz's contentions regarding physical presence and moral character, because his failure to establish hardship is dispositive. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D).
Melgoza-Ortiz's contention regarding a continuance to allow for hardship testimony is unsupported by the record.