Case Name: Jose Luis Estrella SOTO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-01-15
Citations: 85 F. App'x 650
Docket Number: No. 02-72425; Agency No. A74-798-563
Parties: Jose Luis Estrella SOTO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before BEEZER, HALL and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 85
Pages: 650–651

Head Matter:
Jose Luis Estrella SOTO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-72425.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 12, 2004.
Decided Jan. 15, 2004.
Jose Luis Estrella Soto, pro se, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Los Angeles District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Jennifer Light-body, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before BEEZER, HALL and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
The court sua sponte changes the docket to reflect that John Ashcroft, Attorney General, is the proper respondent. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect the above caption.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Luis Estrella Soto, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge's denial of his application for suspension of deportation. We dismiss the petition in part and deny the petition in part.
We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary determination that Estrella Soto failed to establish extreme hardship. See Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1270 (9th Cir.2001).
Estrella Soto's contention that the BIA's opinion insufficiently articulated its reasons for denying relief is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 848-49 (9th Cir.2003).
Estrella Soto's contention that his equal protection rights were violated is foreclosed by Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 517 (9th Cir.2001).
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.