Case Name: Ruben Nava JIMENEZ; Maria Antonia Acevedo De Nava; Alonso Nava Acevedo, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-18
Citations: 232 F. App'x 714
Docket Number: No. 04-71256
Parties: Ruben Nava JIMENEZ; Maria Antonia Acevedo De Nava; Alonso Nava Acevedo, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: NOONAN, KLEINFELD, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 232
Pages: 714–714

Head Matter:
Ruben Nava JIMENEZ; Maria Antonia Acevedo De Nava; Alonso Nava Acevedo, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-71256.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 9, 2007.
Filed May 18, 2007.
Reynold E. Finnegan, Esq., Finnegan & Diba A. Law Corporation, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
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, Joan E. Smiley, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: NOONAN, KLEINFELD, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The immigration judge properly denied cancellation of removal because petitioners lack any qualifying relatives under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2)(A). Petitioners have cited no authority for their equal protection argument, and Fiallo v. Bell and Ram v. INS foreclose it.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
. Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 794, 97 S.Ct. 1473, 52 L.Ed.2d 50 (1977).
. Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 517 (9th Cir.2001).