Case Name: Crespin ROJAS; Maria A. Gonzalez De Rojas, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-14
Citations: 171 F. App'x 108
Docket Number: No. 04-74666; Agency Nos. A95-576-451, A95-576-452
Parties: Crespin ROJAS; Maria A. Gonzalez De Rojas, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before CANBY, BEEZER and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 171
Pages: 108–109

Head Matter:
Crespin ROJAS; Maria A. Gonzalez De Rojas, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-74666.
Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 8, 2006.
Decided March 14, 2006.
Crespin Rojas, Sunnyvale, CA, pro se.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before CANBY, BEEZER and KOZINSKI, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Crespin Rojas and his wife, Maria A. Gonzalez de Rojas, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review due process challenges de novo, see Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ's discretionary determination that the petitioners failed to demonstrate the requisite exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 891-92 (9th Cir.2003).
We reject the petitioners' contention that the agency did not consider the entire administrative record because they offer no basis for rebutting the presumption that the agency reviewed all relevant evidence. See Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092,1095-96 (9th Cir.2000).
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.