
    Mirna Irene VAZQUEZ VITAL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72189.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 18, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 22, 2010.
    Araceli S. Perez-Brizo, Esquire, Law Office of Raul Gomez, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Claire Workman, Trial, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Channah Farber, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District 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

Mirna Irene Vazquez Vital, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying her application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction 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 Vazquez Vital failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her qualifying relatives. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir.2005).

Vazquez Vital’s contention that the IJ’s alleged bias deprived her of due process is not supported by the record, and her remaining due process challenge is unpersuasive.

We reject Vazquez Vital’s contention that the BIA issued a boilerplate decision without reviewing the record, because she has not overcome the presumption that the BIA did review the record. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir.2000).

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.
     