Case ID: f-appx_195/html/0623-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Hector Paredes VALENZUELA; Maria Del Socorro Paredes Cadena, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-70804.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 24, 2006.
    
    Filed Aug. 1, 2006.
    Hector Paredes Valenzuela, Bakersfield, CA, pro se.
    Ma. Del Socorro Paredes Cadena, Bakersfield, CA, pro se.
    CAC-District 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, Lisa M. Arnold, Attorney, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Hector Paredes Valenzuela and his wife Maria del Socorro Paredes Cadena, nafives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Paredes Valenzuela failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir.2005).

Cadena has not challenged the agency’s decision to reinstate an August 21, 1997 order of removal following her prior illegal reentry to the United States. Accordingly, we do not consider Cadena’s remaining challenges in her opening brief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5) (reinstatement of a pri- or order of removal renders an alien ineligible for any relief).

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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.