Case ID: f-appx_136/html/0991-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose GAYTAN-VALDOVINOS; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-70323.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2005.
    
    Decided June 29, 2005.
    Kevin A. Bove, Esq., Attorney at Law, Escondido, CA, for Petitioners.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Alberto R. Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Gaytan-Valdovinos and his wife Magdalena Catalan-Gonzalez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their applications for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

The BIA affirmed the IJ’s discretionary determination that Petitioners failed to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying United States citizen relative. We lack jurisdiction to review the hardship determination. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003). The Petitioners’ contentions do not present colorable due process claims. See Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001).

The voluntary departure period was stayed and that stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate. See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004).

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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.