FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 22 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE LUIS CARREON-LUGO, No. 08-72549
Petitioner, Agency No. A097-469-142
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2011 **
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Jose Luis Carreon-Lugo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order sustaining the government’s
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision granting his application for
cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
*
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).
review de novo questions of law, Hernandez v. Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1014, 1017 (9th
Cir. 2008), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that
Carreon-Lugo failed to show that his removal would result in exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relatives. See Martinez-Rosas v.
Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). Carreon-Lugo’s contentions that the
BIA engaged in improper factfinding, failed to consider all the evidence, and failed
to consider the cumulative impact of his hardship evidence are not supported by
the record and do not amount to colorable legal or constitutional claims. See
Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir. 2009); see also 8 C.F.R.
§ 1003.1(d)(3)(ii) (BIA may review questions of law, discretion, and judgment de
novo).
Contrary to Carreon-Lugo’s contention, the BIA’s interpretation of the
hardship standard falls within the broad range authorized by the statute. See
8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D); Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1001, 1004-06
(9th Cir. 2003).
Carreon-Lugo’s claim that the government’s appeal to the BIA was defective
is not supported by the record.
2 08-72549
Carreon-Lugo’s remaining contention is not persuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
3 08-72549