Case Name: Rosa Olivia Romero ARCE, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-24
Citations: 229 F. App'x 509
Docket Number: No. 05-74330
Parties: Rosa Olivia Romero ARCE, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 229
Pages: 509–510

Head Matter:
Rosa Olivia Romero ARCE, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-74330.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007 .
Filed April 24, 2007.
Jamie Jasso, Law Office of Jamie Jasso, Westlake Village, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., 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, Kurt B. Larson, Esq., Stacy S. Paddack, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office Of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Rosa Olivia Romero Arce seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding an immigration judge's order denying her application for cancellation of removal. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings. See Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's discretionary determination that Romero Arce failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003).
Romero Aree's constitutional challenge to the jurisdictional bar prohibiting review of discretionary decisions is unavailing. See, e.g., Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1152 (9th Cir.1997).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.