Case ID: f-appx_205/html/0535-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Leticia Calderon GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-75529.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 6, 2006.
    
    Filed Nov. 9, 2006.
    Leticia Calderon Garcia, Montclair, CA, pro se.
    Sung U. Park, Esq., Law Offices of Sung U. Park, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-Distriet Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Kurt B. Larson, Esq., Stacy S. Paddack, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Leticia Calderon Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, dismissing her appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal.

We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s challenge to the agency’s discretionary determination that petitioner failed to demonstrate exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her qualifying relatives. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)®; Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003); Montero-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 277 F.3d 1137, 1144 (9th Cir.2002).

In addition, petitioner failed to raise a meritorious equal protection claim, when she argued that the application of the exceptional and extremely unusual hardship standard to her United States citizen children violated their constitutional rights. See Urbano de Malaluan v. INS, 577 F.2d 589, 594 (9th Cir.1978) (impact of petitioner’s removal on United States citizen children does not raise constitutional problems).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part, and DENIED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.