
    Evvers Rafael GUEVARA-MORENO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72110.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 21, 2010.
    Bobby Glenn Bell, Jr., Surowitz & Bell, El Cerrito, CA, for Petitioner.
    Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Oil, Mark Christopher Walters, Esquire, Assistant Director, Jonathan Aaron Robbins, Esquire, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    
      Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   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.
     