Case ID: f-appx_96/html/0517-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jesus Castillo GIL; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-70999.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted April 12, 2004.
    
    Decided April 28, 2004.
    Jesus Castillo Gil, Sun Valley, CA, pro se.
    Maria Del Carmen, Sun Valley, CA, pro se.
    Mary Del Carmen Mary Del Carmen Castillo Camano, Sun Valley, CA, pro se.
    Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Richard M. Evans, Esq., John L. Davis, U.S. Department of Justice, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, RYMER, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jesus Castillo Gil, Maria del Carmen Camano Garcia, and Mary del Carmen Castillo Camano, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming without opinion the decision of the Immigration Judge denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We dismiss in part, and deny in part, the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that Mr. Gil failed to satisfy the “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” requirement for cancellation of removal. Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003).

Petitioners’ equal protection challenges to NACARA and to IIRIRA lack merit. See Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 602-03 (9th Cir.2002); Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 517-518 (9th Cir.2001).

Pursuant to Desta v. Ashcroft, No. 03-70477, petitioners’ motion for stay of removal included a timely request for stay of voluntary departure. Because the motion for stay of removal was granted, or continued based on the government’s filing of a notice of non-opposition, the voluntary departure period was also stayed nunc pro tunc to the filing of the motion for stay of removal, and this stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part, 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.