Case Name: Canuta Munoz DUARTE, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-28
Citations: 193 F. App'x 695
Docket Number: No. 05-71110
Parties: Canuta Munoz DUARTE, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 193
Pages: 695–696

Head Matter:
Canuta Munoz DUARTE, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-71110.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Filed July 28, 2006.
Canuta Munoz Duarte, Anaheim, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Stacy S. Paddack, Kurt B. Larson, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Canuta Munoz Duarte, a native and citizen of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order affirming without opinion an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying her application for cancellation of removal. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ's discretionary determination that Munoz Duarte failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. See MartinezRosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).
To the extent Munoz Duarte challenges the propriety of the streamlining procedure in general or the BIA's decision to streamline her appeal in particular, such challenges are foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 851, 853 (9th Cir.2003).
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.