Case ID: f-appx_96/html/0486-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose Flavio CONTRERAS-RODRIQUEZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-74045.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 12, 2004.
    
    Decided April 26, 2004.
    Kevin A. Bove, Esq., Attorney at Law, Escondido, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, District Director, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Terri J. Scadron, Esq., Virginia Lum, 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

Jose Flavio Contreras-Rodriquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We have jurisdiction to review due process challenges, and we review de novo. Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 599 (9th Cir.2002). We dismiss in part and deny in part.

This court lacks jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary determination that Contreras-Rodriquez did not qualify for cancellation of removal because he failed to demonstrate “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.” See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890-91 (9th Cir.2003).

To the extent Contreras-Rodriquez challenges the particular application of the streamlining regulations to his case, we lack jurisdiction to review this contention. See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 853 (9th Cir.2003).

We also lack jurisdiction to review denials of voluntary departure. 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f); see Alvarez-Santos v. INS, 332 F.3d 1245,1255 (9th Cir.2003);

Contrary to Contreras-Rodriquez’s contention, the BIA’s failure to articulate reasons for its decision does not violate due process. See Falcon Carriche, 350 F.3d at 850-51.

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 may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.