Case ID: f-appx_107/html/0135-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Alfonso PEREZ-MUNOZ; Soila Bustos, Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-73553.
    Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 9, 2004.
    
    Decided Aug. 19, 2004.
    Alfonso Perez-Munoz, Garden Grove, CA, pro se.
    Soila Bustos, Garden Grove, CA, pro se. Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, CAC — District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Mark A. Walters, Jennifer L. Lightbody, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, RAWLINSON and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       We amend the caption to reflect that John Ashcroft, Attorney General, is the proper respondent. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect this caption.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alfonso Perez-Munoz and Soila Bustos, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“U”) denial of their applications for suspension of deportation. We have partial jurisdiction pursuant to former 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). See Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1150 (9th Cir.1997). We dismiss the petition for review in part and deny it in part.

Because the IJ’s denial of suspension of deportation was based on Petitioners’ failure to demonstrate “extreme hardship,” we lack jurisdiction to review this discretionary determination under the transitional rules of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. See id. at 1152.

Petitioners’ challenge to the BIA’s streamlining procedure is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 852 (9th Cir.2003). Petitioners’ challenge to the exclusion of Mexicans from the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act is foreclosed by Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 517 (9th Cir.2001). We find no merit in Petitioners’ remaining contentions.

Pursuant to Elian v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 897, 898-99 (9th Cir.2004) (order), Petitioners’ voluntary departure period will begin to run upon issuance of this court’s mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 
      
       xhiS 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.