Case Name: J. Refugio ALEGRIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-17
Citations: 177 F. App'x 640
Docket Number: No. 05-70899
Parties: J. Refugio ALEGRIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, MCKEOWN and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 177
Pages: 640–640

Head Matter:
J. Refugio ALEGRIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-70899.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 13, 2006.
Decided April 17, 2006.
J. Refugio Alegría, Los Angeles, 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, Stacy S. Paddack, Kurt B. Larson, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, MCKEOWN 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
J. Refugio Alegria, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals summarily affirming without separate opinion the immigration judge's denial of his application for cancellation of removal.
Petitioner contends that the immigration judge erred in concluding that he failed to establish that his removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his United States citizen children.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's discretionary determination that petitioner failed to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir.2005).
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.