Felix Hernandez-Arroyo v. Loretta E. Lynch ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           DEC 19 2016
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    FELIX HERNANDEZ-ARROYO,                          No.   15-71206
    Petitioner,                       Agency No. A200-978-988
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted December 14, 2016**
    Before:        WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    Felix Hernandez-Arroyo, 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 decision denying his application for cancellation of removal.
    Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    law. Iturribarria v. INS, 
    321 F.3d 889
    , 894 (9th Cir. 2003). We dismiss in part
    and deny in part the petition for review.
    We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that
    Hernandez-Arroyo 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).
    Hernandez-Arroyo’s contentions that the BIA applied an incorrect legal
    standard, considered facts not in the record, failed to show proper consideration of
    all factors, and failed to address all issues raised on appeal are not supported by the
    record. See Najmabadi v. Holder, 
    597 F.3d 983
    , 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (agency need
    not “write an exegesis on every contention” (internal citation omitted)).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
    2                                   15-71206