Case ID: f-appx_328/html/0491-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Maria De La Luz GUTIERREZ-MUNOZ; Jose Marcelinio Esteves Canchola, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-74763.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted June 16, 2009.
    
    Filed July 6, 2009.
    Marc Karlin, Karlin & Karlin, APC, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
    Gwendolyn Millicent Gamble, Assistant U.S., Office of U.S. Attorney, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District, Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Maria De La Luz Gutierrez-Munoz and Jose Marcelinio Esteves Canchóla, married natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order sustaining the government’s appeal of an immigration judge’s decision granting their applications for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations, Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that petitioners failed to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. See Martinez-Rosas, 424 F.3d at 930.

Petitioners’ contention that the BIA violated due process by applying intervening BIA decisions without providing them with notice or an opportunity to respond is foreclosed by Theagene v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 1107, 1112-1113 (9th Cir.2005).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.