Case Name: Daniel SALDANA-VELASQUEZ; Ana Maria Castro-Acevedo, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-07-13
Citations: 138 F. App'x 975
Docket Number: No. 04-71532
Parties: Daniel SALDANA-VELASQUEZ; Ana Maria Castro-Acevedo, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, RAWLINSON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 138
Pages: 975–976

Head Matter:
Daniel SALDANA-VELASQUEZ; Ana Maria Castro-Acevedo, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-71532.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 11, 2005.
Decided July 13, 2005.
Juan Antonio Molina, Esq., Calexico, CA, for Petitioners.
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, Virginia Lum, Anthony W. Norwood, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, RAWLINSON and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Daniel Saldana-Velasquez and his wife Ana Maria Castro-Acevedo (the "petitioners"), natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") summary affirmance of an immigration judge's ("IJ") denial of their applications for cancellation of removal. We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ's discretionary determination that petitioners failed to demonstrate the requisite exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 891-92 (9th Cir.2003). Furthermore, we lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners' due process contention that they were denied a full and fair hearing before an impartial fact finder because it was not raised before the BIA. See Sanchez-Cruz v. INS, 255 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir.2001) (due process claims raising correctable procedural errors must be exhausted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
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.