Case Name: Jorge MARQUEZ-CRUZ; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-03-31
Citations: 92 F. App'x 565
Docket Number: No. 02-71771
Parties: Jorge MARQUEZ-CRUZ; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before B. FLETCHER, LEAVY, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 92
Pages: 565–566

Head Matter:
Jorge MARQUEZ-CRUZ; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-71771.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 15, 2004.
Decided March 31, 2004.
John Ayala, Cobos and Ayala, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Los Angeles District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Nancy E. Friedman, Esq., Christine A. Bither, Esq., Stephen J. Flynn, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before B. FLETCHER, LEAVY, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jorge Marquez-Cruz and Amada Jimenez-Rodriguez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") summary affirmance of an immigration judge's denial of their applications for cancellation of removal. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, we have jurisdiction to review petitioners' constitutional challenge to the BIA's streamlining regulations, however, this contention is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 851 (9th Cir.2003).
We lack jurisdiction to evaluate whether streamlining was appropriate in this case because the IJ denied relief based, in part, on petitioners' failure to demonstrate "ex ceptional and extremely unusual" hardship. See id. at 854.
The Clerk is directed to stay the mandate pending the resolution of Desta v. Ashcroft, 03-70477, and further order of this Court.
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.