Case ID: f-appx_138/html/0976-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose Antonio AVILES; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-70628.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 11, 2005.
    
    Decided July 13, 2005.
    
      Jose Antonio Aviles, Ojai, CA, pro se. Maria Francisca Calderon Jimenez, Ojai, CA, pro se.
    Laura Isela Aviles Calderon, Ojai, CA, pro se.
    Miguel Angel Aviles Calderon, Ojai, CA, pro se.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Paul Fiorino, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, RAWLINSON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Aviles and his family, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) denial of their motions to reopen and reconsider its decision summarily affirming without' opinion an immigration judge’s denial of their applications for cancellation of removal. We lack jurisdiction to review whether the BIA improperly streamlined petitioners’ appeal where the “discretionary ‘exceptional and extremely unusual hardship’ factor” is the only issue in dispute. See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 855 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.