Nelson Lash AKINMULERO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE, Respondent-Appellee, 35 F. App'x 779

ORDER AND JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. This panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This matter comes before the court on petitioner Nelson Lash Akinmulero’s petition for review and request for stay pending review. Mr.

AMnmulero seeks review of the April 17, 2002 order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of the immigration judge’s July 1, 1999 decision finding him removable and denying his application for cancellation of removal. The BIA concluded that Mr. AMnmulero had not established that his removal would cause exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his daughter. Having reviewed the materials presented to us, we conclude that this court does not have jurisdiction over this matter.

A determination by the BIA that one seeMng suspension of a deportation order has not shown “extreme hardship” is a discretionary decision that this court may not review. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii); Escalera v. INS, 222 F.3d 753, 755 (10th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, the petition for review is DISMISSED, and the motion to stay is DENIED as moot. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel.

The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.