Case ID: f-appx_96/html/0472-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Martin Edgar GARCIA-RONQUIO; Lidia Vidana-De-Garcia, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-73068.
    Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 12, 2004.
    
    Decided April 23, 2004.
    J. Jack Artz, South Pasadena, CA, for Petitioners.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Gounsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Kurt B. Larson, William C. Minick, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before HALL, O’SCANNLAIN, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Martin Edgar Garcia-Ronquio and his wife, Lidia Vidana-De-Garcia, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their applications for cancellation of removal. We lack jurisdiction to consider discretionary hardship determinations. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary hardship determination. See id.

To the extent petitioners contend that the BIA’s streamlined decision was improper because it left open the question of how more recent decisions affect the outcome of their case, this contention is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 850 (9th Cir.2003).

We do not consider petitioners’ contention that Garcia-Ronquio is eligible for relief pursuant to the LIFE Act because they failed to exhaust this issue before the BIA. See Arreaza-Cruz v. INS, 39 F.3d 909, 912 (9th Cir.1994).

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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.