Alop

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Danilo Alop, his wife, Susanna, and their children appeal the BIA’s summary affirmance of the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their application for a waiver of inadmissibility.

Under San Pedro v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1156, 1157 (9th Cir.2005), Medina-Morales v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 520, 528 (9th Cir. 2004), and Spencer Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 345 F.3d 683, 689-90 (9th Cir.2003), we have held that we do not have jurisdiction to review decisions by the Attorney General that are committed solely to the discretion of the Attorney General. Section 237(a)(1)(H) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a) (2)(B) (ii), is one of those provisions that commits to the Attorney General discretion regarding whether to waive removal. San Pedro, 395 F.3d 1156, 1157 (“Section 237(a)(1)(H) clearly specifies that the discretionary waiver determination lies in the hands of the Attorney General.... Accordingly, we have jurisdiction only to review the statutory eligibility elements under § 237(a)(1)(H) and lack jurisdiction to review discretionary denial of the waiver.” (citations omitted)); see also Matsuk v. INS, 247 F.3d 999, 1002 (9th…