
    Enrique Alberto TAVERA TAPIA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-74779.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.
    
    Filed Jan. 14, 2009.
    Dagmar Butte, Esquire, Parker Bush & Lane, Portland, OR, for Petitioner.
    
      Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Stacy Stiffel Pad-dack, Carlos J. Ruiz, Esquire, Shahira M. Tadross, Esquire, Lisa Marie Arnold, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jeffery R. Leist, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Enrique Alberto Tavera Tapia, 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. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that Tavera failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003). Tavera’s contention that the BIA incorrectly applied the legal standard under Cabrera-Alvarez v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1006, 1012 (9th Cir. 2005), is in effect, a challenge to the BIA’s discretionary hardship finding; therefore, we lack jurisdiction. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005).

We do not consider Tavera’s contentions regarding moral character, because his failure to establish hardship is dispositive.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     