Case Name: Martha CORTEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-15
Citations: 158 F. App'x 892
Docket Number: No. 04-70484; Agency No. A79-519-639
Parties: Martha CORTEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, TASHIMA and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 158
Pages: 892–893

Head Matter:
Martha CORTEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-70484.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 5, 2005.
Decided Dec. 15, 2005.
Martha Cortez, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office Of The District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before GOODWIN, TASHIMA and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Martha Cortez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") order denying her application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ's discretionary determination that Cortez did not establish good moral character. See Moran v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir.2005) (indicating that a good moral character determination is only reviewable where it is based on one of the statutory exclusions found in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)).
To the extent Cortez challenges the IJ's exceptional and extremely unusual hardship determination, we also lack jurisdiction. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 891 (9th Cir.2003).
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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.