Manuel Penuelas-Hermosillo 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MANUEL PENUELAS-HERMOSILLO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71288
Agency No. A092-364-818
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Penuelas-Hermosillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal of an immigration
judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
determine our jurisdiction de novo and review for substantial evidence the
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-71288 2
agency’s factual findings. Alarcon-Serrano v. INS, 220 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir.
2000). We dismiss the petition for review.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Penuelas-
Hermosillo is removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(C)(i) where the factual basis
of his plea agreement evidences that he had knowledge of and affirmatively
concealed the commission of felony possession of marijuana with intent to
distribute. See Lopez-Molina v. Ashcroft, 368 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2004).
We therefore lack jurisdiction over this aspect of the petition for review. See
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C); Lopez-Molina, 368 F.3d at 1209.
We also lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of Penuelas-
Hermosillo’s application for cancellation of removal for lawful permanent
residents, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), and he has not raised a colorable due
process challenge to the discretionary determination, see Martinez-Rosas v.
Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005).
In light of our disposition, we need not reach Penuelas-Hermosillo’s
remaining contention.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --