Case Name: Apolinar BELTRAN; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-15
Citations: 114 F. App'x 953
Docket Number: Nos. 03-73328; Agency Nos. A79-539-388, A79-539-389, A79-539-390, A79-539-391, A79-539-392, A79-539-393, A79-539-401
Parties: Apolinar BELTRAN; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 114
Pages: 953–954

Head Matter:
Apolinar BELTRAN; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Nos. 03-73328.
Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.
Decided Dec. 15, 2004.
Apolinar Beltran, Fallbrook, CA, pro se.
Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Apolinar and Lucas Beltran and their five children, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' summary affirmance of an immigration judge's order finding that they were removable and that they had abandoned their application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review constitutional claims de novo, Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition for review.
To the extent Petitioners contend that not being allowed to apply for suspension of deportation violates equal protection, that contention is foreclosed by Hernandez-Mezquita v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 1161, 1163-65 (9th Cir.2002) (holding that petitioner must show that Congress's "line-drawing" is wholly irrational in order to demonstrate equal protection violation). To the extent Petitioners also contend that the change in the underlying law is unconstitutional, their argument is foreclosed by Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 599-602 (9th Cir.2002).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
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.