Case Name: Hector Salvador MENDEZ-VARGAS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-15
Citations: 158 F. App'x 876
Docket Number: No. 03-74363; Agency No. A79-777-969
Parties: Hector Salvador MENDEZ-VARGAS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, TASHIMA and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 158
Pages: 876–877

Head Matter:
Hector Salvador MENDEZ-VARGAS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-74363.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 5, 2005.
Decided Dec. 15, 2005.
Thomas A. Mix, Esq., Carlsbad, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department Of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Linda S. Wendtland, Esq., Cindy S. Ferrier, Esq., DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before GOODWIN, TASHIMA 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
Hector Salvador Mendez-Vargas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") order denying his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Mendez-Vargas' challenge to the IJ's determination that he failed to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his United States citizen daughter. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003).
The voluntary departure period was stayed, and that stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate. See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.