Case Name: Fidelia Estrada CUEVAS; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-27
Citations: 193 F. App'x 675
Docket Number: No. 03-73044
Parties: Fidelia Estrada CUEVAS; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCON, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 193
Pages: 675–675

Head Matter:
Fidelia Estrada CUEVAS; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-73044.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Decided July 27, 2006.
Fidelia Estrada Cuevas, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
Ignacio Morales Ortiz, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
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, Lisa M. Arnold, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCON, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Fidelia Estrada Cuevas and Ignacio Morales Ortiz, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order affirming without opinion an immigration judge's (IJ) decision denying their application for cancellation of removal. Petitioners' contention that they met the "good moral character" and continuous physical presence requirements for cancellation of removal is unavailing because the IJ's decision was based solely on a finding that they had not demonstrated the requisite degree of hardship. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 889 (9th Cir.2003) (listing statutory requirements for relief). We lack jurisdiction to review that discretionary determination. See id. at 891-92.
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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.