Case Name: Mario LLAMAS-GUTIERREZ; Cristina Llamas, a.k.a. Maria Cristina Llamas, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-02-23
Citations: 415 F. App'x 802
Docket Number: No. 08-72865
Parties: Mario LLAMAS-GUTIERREZ; Cristina Llamas, a.k.a. Maria Cristina Llamas, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 415
Pages: 802–803

Head Matter:
Mario LLAMAS-GUTIERREZ; Cristina Llamas, a.k.a. Maria Cristina Llamas, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-72865.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
Filed Feb. 23, 2011.
Christopher John Stender, Esquire, Stender & Associates, P.C., San Diego, CA, for Petitioners.
Elizabeth Do Kurlan, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Mario Llamas-Gutierrez and Cristina Llamas, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Altamirano v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir.2005). We dis miss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners' contentions that they did not knowingly and voluntarily consent to their August 23, 1998, expedited removal orders, because it would require us to "nullify the continuing effects of [those] order[s]," which 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(A) bars. Avendano-Ramirez v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 813, 818-19 (9th Cir.2004).
Because the agency correctly determined that the expedited removal orders precluded petitioners from estabhshing the continuous physical presence required for cancellation of removal, see Juarez-Ramos v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 509, 512 (9th Cir.2007), we need not reach their remaining contentions.
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.