Case ID: f-appx_101/html/0266-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Olivia LOPEZ-ESQUER, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-71095.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2004.
    
    Decided June 21, 2004.
    James G. Roche, Law Offices of James G. Roche, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, M. Jocelyn Wright, Esq., Larry P. Cote, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before LEAVY, THOMAS, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Olivia Lopez-Esquer, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion an immigration judge’s removal order and denial of her application for cancellation of removal. We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary determination that Lopez-Esquer failed to demonstrate the requisite “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a qualifying relative. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003).

Lopez-Esquer’s contention that the Board was required to state reasons for its decision lacks merit. Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 851 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that the BIA does not violate due process by affirming without opinion an immigration judge’s hardship determination in a cancellation of removal case).

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.