Terence John Finch 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
TERENCE JOHN FINCH,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71291
Agency No. A096-107-987
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted June 29, 2010**
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Terence John Finch, a native and citizen of England, 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
and denying his motion to remand. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
FILED
JUL 16 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-71291 2
§ 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We lack
jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that Finch 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).
The evidence Finch presented with his motion to remand concerned the
same basic hardship grounds as his application for cancellation of removal. See
Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 602-03 (9th Cir. 2006). We therefore lack
jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that the evidence was
insufficient to establish a prima facie case of hardship. See id. at 601.
Finch’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --