United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 9, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-61069
Summary Calendar
Jesus Enrique Martinez-Reyes,
Petitioner,
versus
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent.
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
BIA No. A70-621-656
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Petitioner, Jose Enrique Martinez-Reyes, is a citizen of
Mexico who concedes removability, having entered the United States
without being admitted or paroled.1 Petitioner seeks review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) March 16, 2005 denial of his
application for cancellation of removal.2 The Immigration Judge
(IJ) found Petitioner ineligible for cancellation of removal both
for failure to establish ten years of continuous physical presence
*
Pursuant to the 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
1
See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i).
2
8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1).
and for failure to demonstrate exceptional and extremely unusual
hardship to his U.S.-citizen relatives.3 The BIA affirmed solely
on the latter grounds.
We lack jurisdiction to review this matter. The determination
that Martinez-Reyes’ children and parents would not suffer an
"exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" if he were deported to
Mexico is within the bounds of the Board’s discretionary
authority.4 Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) strips this Court of
jurisdiction to review a discretionary decision to deny
cancellation of removal.5
DISMISSED.
3
See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(b)(1)(A) and (D).
4
See Rueda v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 831, 831 (5th Cir. 2004) (per curiam);
see Mireles-Valdez v. Ashcroft, 349 F.3d 213, 216 (5th Cir. 2003); see also Bravo
v. Aschroft, 341 F.3d 590, 592-93 (5th Cir. 2003).
5
Id. The rule for judicial review governing cancellation of removal
states:
Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no court shall have
jurisdiction to review–
(i) any judgment regarding the granting of relief under
section...1229b...of this title, or
(ii) any other decision or action of the Attorney General the
authority for which is specified under this subchapter to be in the
discretion of the Attorney General....
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).