Case Name: Maria Del Rosario BENITEZ; Luis Francisco Hernandez Garcia, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-09
Citations: 205 F. App'x 569
Docket Number: No. 03-70024
Parties: Maria Del Rosario BENITEZ; Luis Francisco Hernandez Garcia, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 205
Pages: 569–570

Head Matter:
Maria Del Rosario BENITEZ; Luis Francisco Hernandez Garcia, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-70024.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 6, 2006.
Filed Nov. 9, 2006.
Reza G. Athari, Esq., Immigration Law Offices of Reza G. Athari, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioners.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Andrew C. MacLachlan, Esq., Office of the District Chief Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Maria del Rosario Benitez and her son Luis Francisco Hernandez Garcia, natives and citizens of Guatemala, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order affirming without opinion an immigration judge's decision pretermitting their applications for suspension of deportation. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional challenges, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners' contention regarding the service of the Order to Show Cause because they failed to exhaust this issue before the BIA. See Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 930 (9th Cir.2004).
Application of the stop-time rule to petitioners' applications for suspension of deportation did not violate their rights to due process or equal protection. See Ram, 243 F.3d at 516-17.
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 provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.