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:T40c,MEMORANDUM Hector Estrada-Lampayas, 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 jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Estrada-Lampayas’ contention that the IJ failed to consider the possibility of hardship caused by familial separation is not supported by the record. To the extent that Estrada-Lampayas contends that the agency abused its discretion by improperly weighing the hardships in this ease or by misapplying the facts to the applicable law, we lack jurisdiction. See Figueroa v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 487, 494-95 (9th Cir.2008) (court lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary hardship determination). 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:T439,

MEMORANDUM

Hector Estrada-Lampayas, 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 jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Estrada-Lampayas’ contention that the IJ failed to consider the possibility of hardship caused by familial separation is not supported by the record. To the extent that Estrada-Lampayas contends that the agency abused its discretion by improperly weighing the hardships in this ease or by misapplying the facts to the applicable law, we lack jurisdiction. See Figueroa v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 487, 494-95 (9th Cir.2008) (court lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary hardship determination).

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.