
    Raul ROQUE, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-70408
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 16, 2016 
    
    Filed August 23, 2016
    Enrique Ramirez, Law Office of Enrique Ramirez, San Francisco, CA.
    Matthew Albert Connelly, Trial Attorney, OIL, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, San Francisco, CA.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAYY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Raul Roque, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations. Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Ro-que failed to show the requisite hardship to a qualifying relative for cancellation of removal. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir. 2003). We do not consider Roque’s contentions regarding good moral character because his failure to establish hardship is dispositive. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1); Simeonov, 371 F.3d at 538.

Roque’s contentions that the BIA violated due process by disregarding evidence of hardship and in not providing a reasoned explanation for its hardship determination are not supported by the record. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2000) (petitioners must overcome presumption that agency reviewed all evidence); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (the BIA need not “write an exegesis on every contention” (citation and quotation marks omitted)).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     