Case ID: f-appx_113/html/0282-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Otilio LEYVA-LOZANO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-73318.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 15, 2004.
    
    Decided Nov. 18, 2004.
    James G. Roche, Law Offices of James G. Roche, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner.
    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, Deborah N. Misir, Esq., Office of Immigration Litigation Civil Division, Department of Justice, Michelle R. Slack, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, MCKEOWN and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The Clerk is directed to change the caption to reflect that John Ashcroft is the correct respondent.
    
    
      
      The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Otilio Leyva-Lozano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) streamlined decision affirming the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for suspension of deportation. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary determination that petitioner failed to show the requisite hardship necessary to qualify for suspension of deportation, see Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1152 (9th Cir.1997), as well as the BIA’s decision to streamline petitioner’s appeal from the hardship determination, see Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 852-55 (9th Cir.2003).

Pursuant to Elian v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 897 (9th Cir.2004), petitioner’s voluntary departure period will begin to run upon issuance of this court’s mandate.

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.