Case Name: Maribel ROJAS, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-25
Citations: 102 F. App'x 96
Docket Number: No. 03-70864
Parties: Maribel ROJAS, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 102
Pages: 96–97

Head Matter:
Maribel ROJAS, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-70864.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2004.
Decided June 25, 2004.
Maribel Rojas, Anaheim, CA, pro se.
Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Donald A. Couvillon, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, 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
Maribel Rojas, a native and citizen of Peru, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") denial of her motion to reconsider and reopen removal proceedings in which the BIA affirmed the decision of an immigration judge denying her application for cancellation of removal because she failed to establish the requisite hardship. We dismiss the petition.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial of Rojas' motion to reconsider and reopen because such a denial is a judgment regarding the granting of the discretionary relief of cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); cf. Medina-Morales v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 520, 525-27 (9th Cir.2004) (finding jurisdiction to review denial of motion to reopen where there was never a ruling on the discretionary relief sought by alien).
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.