United States v. 2020-03-06 | 18-71285 | MAURICIO PINON-CERECERES V. WILLIAM BARR | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MAURICIO PINON-CERECERES,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 18-71285

Agency No. A201-157-151

MEMORANDUM
*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 3, 2020
**

Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Mauricio Pinon-Cereceres, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ 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
law. Figueroa v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 487, 495-96 (9th Cir. 2008). We dismiss in

*
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).
FILED

MAR 6 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 18-71285
part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Pinon-Cereceres did not demonstrate exceptional and extremely unusual hardship
in his application for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i);
Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 888 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[A]n ‘exceptional
and extremely unusual hardship’ determination is a subjective, discretionary
judgment that has been carved out of our appellate jurisdiction.”).
Although we retain jurisdiction to consider questions of law, see Figueroa,
543 F.3d at 495-96, Pinon-Cereceres has not established any error underlying the
agency’s hardship determination.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.