Raul E. Monterrosa v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAUL E. MONTERROSA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74078
Agency No. A092-864-462
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Raul E. Monterrosa, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
immigration judge’s order of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law, including due process claims,
FILED
JUN 01 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-74078 2
Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005), and we dismiss in
part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary denial of
Monterrosa’s application for relief under section 212(c) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii); Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales,
497 F.3d 919, 923 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Discretionary decisions, including whether or
not to grant § 212(c) relief, are not reviewable.”).
Monterrosa’s contention that the BIA applied an incorrect legal standard in
adjudicating his application for section 212(c) relief is not persuasive. His
remaining contentions regarding agency bias are not supported by the record.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --