IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
                                                    Fifth Circuit

                                                 FILED
                                                                          February 27, 2009
                                     No. 08-60233
                                   Summary Calendar                    Charles R. Fulbruge III
                                                                               Clerk

MARIA MARTINA MUNOZ

                                                   Petitioner

v.

ERIC H HOLDER, JR, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL

                                                   Respondent


                        Petition for Review of an Order of the
                           Board of Immigration Appeals
                                 BIA No. A94 024 991


Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
       Maria Martina Munoz, a citizen and national of Guatemala, seeks a
petition for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
denying her application for hardship cancellation of removal pursuant to 8
U.S.C. § 1229b as well as special rule cancellation under the Nicaraguan
Adjustment and Central America Relief Act, Pub.L. No. 105-100, 111 Stat. 2160,
2193-97 (1997), amended by Pub. L. No. 105-139, 111 Stat. 2644 (1997)
(NACARA). We dismiss the petition in part for lack of jurisdiction and deny the

       *
         Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .
R. 47.5.4.
                                  No. 08-60233

petition in part. Although Munoz separately filed a petition for review of a
denial of a motion to reopen, she does not address that ruling in her brief or any
supplemental filing and thus has abandoned any challenge to that ruling. See
Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 

, 833 (5th Cir. 2003).
      We generally review only the BIA’s decision except to the extent that the
decision of the immigration judge (IJ) influences the BIA. Mikhael v. INS, 

, 302 (5th Cir. 1997). With respect to the determination that Munoz
failed to demonstrate the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship”
required under § 1229b, we lack jurisdiction to review this purely discretionary
determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Sung v. Keisler, 

, 377
(5th Cir. 2007); Rueda v. Ashcroft, 

, 831 (5th Cir. 2004). We reject
Munoz’s attempt to recast what amounts to a disagreement with the weighing
and consideration of the relevant factors by the IJ as a constitutional or legal
issue. See Hadwani v. Gonzales, 

, 801 (5th Cir. 2006).
      With respect to the determination that Munoz did not meet the statutory
eligibility requirements for special rule cancellation, we have jurisdiction to
review a non-discretionary application of law to facts. See, e.g., Mireles-Valdez
v. Ashcroft, 

, 215 (5th Cir. 2003). The evidence does not compel the
conclusion that Munoz satisfied the requirements. See § 1252(b)(4)(B); 8 C.F.R.
§§ 1240.61, 1240.62; Tamara-Gomez v. Gonzales, 

, 347 (5th Cir.
2006). Thus, we deny the petition for review on this issue.
      DISMISSED IN PART FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION; DENIED IN
PART.




                                        2