Case Name: Jose DE JESUS LLAMAS-NUNES, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-04-11
Citations: 125 F. App'x 873
Docket Number: No. 02-71591, A76-620-685
Parties: Jose DE JESUS LLAMASNUNES, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before KOZINSKI, HAWKINS and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 125
Pages: 873–874

Head Matter:
Jose DE JESUS LLAMASNUNES, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-71591, [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 4, 2005.
Decided April 11, 2005.
Law Offices of Albert C. Lum, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-District Counsel, 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, Luis E. Perez, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before KOZINSKI, HAWKINS and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Alberto R. Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
This panel unanimously finds this case suit able for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose De Jesus Llamas-Nunes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion an immigration judge's denial of his application for cancellation of removal. The immigration judge determined that petitioner failed to establish the requisite exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying United States citizen relative.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's discretionary denial of cancellation of removal, as well as petitioners' non-colorable due process challenge to that denial. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003); Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001). Petitioner's due process challenge to the BIA's streamlining procedures is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 852 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part, and 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.