Refugio Payan-Morales 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
REFUGIO PAYAN-MORALES,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72898
Agency No. A095-183-484
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Refugio Payan-Morales, 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 (“IJ”) decision granting her application for
cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
FILED
SEP 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-72898 2
review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th
Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Contrary to Payan-Morales’ contention, the BIA used the proper standard in
its hardship determination. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3)(ii); see also Figueroa v.
Mukasey, 543 F.3d 487, 497-98 (9th Cir. 2008) (agency must conduct a “future-
oriented analysis” in determining whether “removal would result in an exceptional
and extremely unusual hardship to the citizen-children”) (emphasis in the original).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that
Payan-Morales 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --