Case Name: Alfredo Saab ESTRADA, Karina Rubio Estrada Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-11-18
Citations: 113 F. App'x 280
Docket Number: No. 02-72790
Parties: Alfredo Saab ESTRADA, Karina Rubio Estrada Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, MCKEOWN and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 113
Pages: 280–281

Head Matter:
Alfredo Saab ESTRADA, Karina Rubio Estrada Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-72790.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 15, 2004.
Decided Nov. 18, 2004.
Robert G. Berke, Burke Law Offices, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Immigration & Naturalization Service, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., David Dauenheimer, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, MCKEOWN and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Alfredo Saab Estrada and Karina Rubio Estrada, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision dismissing their appeal from the Immigration Judge's ("IJ") decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's discretionary determination that petitioners failed to demonstrate the requisite "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D). See id. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003).
We similarly lack jurisdiction over petitioners' contention that the IJ was biased and denied them the right to a full and fair hearing because they did not raise this contention before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust them administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 676-78 (9th Cir.2004).
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.