Case Name: Guillermo MERCADO-CASTRO; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-01-15
Citations: 85 F. App'x 653
Docket Number: No. 02-71390; Agency Nos. A75-639-646, A75-639-647, A75-639-648, A75-639-649
Parties: Guillermo MERCADO-CASTRO; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before BEEZER, HALL, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 85
Pages: 653–654

Head Matter:
Guillermo MERCADO-CASTRO; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-71390.
Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 12, 2004.
Decided Jan. 15, 2004.
Guillermo Mercado Castro, pro se, Gregoria Castro, pro se, Patricia Mercado Castro, pro se, Adrianna Azucena Mercado, pro se, Garden Grove, CA, for Petitioners.
Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Los Angeles District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of The District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, David Dauenheimer, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before BEEZER, HALL, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
John Ashcroft, Attorney General, is the proper respondent. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect the above caption. The government’s request to further amend the docket is denied.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Guillermo Mercado-Castro and his family, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision summarily affirming the immigration judge's denial of Mercado-Castro's application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
We lack jurisdiction to review whether Mercado-Castro demonstrated the requisite exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to qualify for cancellation of removal. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890-92 (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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.