22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4e4,MEMORANDUM Ewers Rafael Guevara-Moreno, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision vacating an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision granting cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review de novo questions of law. Brezilien v. Holder, 569 F.3d 403, 411 (9th Cir.2009). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. The BIA denied cancellation of removal as a matter of discretion and this court lacks jurisdiction to review such discretionary decisions. Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.2003). Guevara-Moreno’s contention that the BIA exceeded its authority by engaging in fact-finding is not persuasive because the BIA reversed the IJ’s decision as a matter of discretion, based on the facts found by the IJ, and did not find new facts. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1 (d)(3)(ii) (“The Board may review questions of law, discretion, and judgment and all other issues in appeals from decisions of immigration judges de novo.”). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T516,

MEMORANDUM

Ewers Rafael Guevara-Moreno, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision vacating an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision granting cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review de novo questions of law. Brezilien v. Holder, 569 F.3d 403, 411 (9th Cir.2009). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA denied cancellation of removal as a matter of discretion and this court lacks jurisdiction to review such discretionary decisions. Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.2003).

Guevara-Moreno’s contention that the BIA exceeded its authority by engaging in fact-finding is not persuasive because the BIA reversed the IJ’s decision as a matter of discretion, based on the facts found by the IJ, and did not find new facts. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1 (d)(3)(ii) (“The Board may review questions of law, discretion, and judgment and all other issues in appeals from decisions of immigration judges de novo.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.