Eduardo Leon-Flores 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
EDUARDO LEON-FLORES,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-72848
Agency No. A017-921-465
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 16, 2010**
Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Eduardo Leon-Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order sustaining the government’s
appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision granting a waiver of
inadmissibility under former section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality
FILED
NOV 19 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-72848 2
Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims, Figueroa
v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 487, 491 (9th Cir. 2008), and we dismiss in part and deny in
part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary denial of Leon-
Flores’ application for relief under section 212(c), see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)
and 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.”), and Leon-Flores 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). His contentions that the BIA applied an incorrect legal
standard in adjudicating his application for section 212(c) relief are not persuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --