Case Name: Cornelio Arcos MEMIJE; Maria Del Rosario Rendon Velez, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-26
Citations: 481 F.3d 1163
Docket Number: No. 06-71282
Parties: Cornelio Arcos MEMIJE; Maria Del Rosario Rendon Velez, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before HARRY PREGERSON, RICHARD C. TALLMAN and CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 481
Pages: 1163–1169

Head Matter:
Cornelio Arcos MEMIJE; Maria Del Rosario Rendon Velez, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-71282.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
March 26, 2007.
Cornelio Arcos Memije, Corona, CA, pro se.
Maria Del Rosario Rendon Velez, Corona, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, William C. Minick, Leslie McKay, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before HARRY PREGERSON, RICHARD C. TALLMAN and CONSUELO M. CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER
On July 3, 2006, we dismissed this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. Since that time, petitioners have filed three motions for reconsideration of our July 3, 2006 order. Because petitioners have not identified any points of law or fact overlooked by the court, these motions are denied. See 9th Cir. R. 27-10.
Section 242(a)(2)(B)® of the Immigration and Naturalization Act expressly eliminates our jurisdiction over decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals that involve the exercise of discretion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)®. We lack jurisdiction to review the Immigration Judge's discretionary determination that Cornelio Arcos Memije and Maria Del Rosario Ren-den Velez failed to establish the requisite exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to their United States citizen children, and are therefore ineligible for cancellation of removal. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003).
For the same reasons, we lack jurisdiction to decide the issues raised in Judge Pregerson's dissent. While we empathize with Judge Pregerson's heartfelt sentiments, Congress has delegated to the Attorney General the discretion to consider them and it has restricted our power to overturn them. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)®. As our colleague, Judge Farris, so eloquently put it in another immigration case, "My brother and I differ on what is the appropriate appellate function. He would retry. I am content to review." Li v. Ashcroft, 378 F.3d 959, 964 n. 1 (9th Cir.2004).
No motions for reconsideration, rehearing, clarification, stay of the mandate, or any other submissions shall be filed or entertained in this closed docket.