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:T442,MEMORANDUM Alfredo Melgoza-Ortiz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. Our juris diction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Mel-goza-Ortiz 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). We do not consider Melgoza-Ortiz’s contentions regarding physical presence and moral character, because his failure to establish hardship is dispositive. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D). Melgoza-Ortiz’s contention regarding a continuance to allow for hardship testimony is unsupported by the record. PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T479,

MEMORANDUM

Alfredo Melgoza-Ortiz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. Our juris diction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Mel-goza-Ortiz 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).

We do not consider Melgoza-Ortiz’s contentions regarding physical presence and moral character, because his failure to establish hardship is dispositive. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D).

Melgoza-Ortiz’s contention regarding a continuance to allow for hardship testimony is unsupported by the record.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

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