Case Name: Jose Ignacio Medrano CLAUSTRO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-09-20
Citations: 110 F. App'x 44
Docket Number: No. 03-71509; Agency No. A76-361-078
Parties: Jose Ignacio Medrano CLAUSTRO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 110
Pages: 44–45

Head Matter:
Jose Ignacio Medrano CLAUSTRO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-71509.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2004.
Decided Sept. 20, 2004.
J. Jack Artz, Esq., South Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, San Francisco, CA, Terri J. Scadron, Esq., Efthimia S. Pilitsis, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before PREGERSON, T.G. NELSON, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Ignacio Medrano Claustro, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying Medrano Claustro's application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction because the IJ denied the cancellation application, in part, because Medrano Claustro had not demonstrated the requisite "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship." See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003) (court lacks jurisdiction to review discretionary determination that an alien failed to satisfy hardship requirement for cancellation of removal). Medrano Claustro's contentions that this court has jurisdiction over his petition for review despite Romero-Torres are unpersuasive.
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.