Case Name: Francisco Heleodoro GONZALEZ-ROSARIO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-24
Citations: 101 F. App'x 746
Docket Number: No. 02-73954
Parties: Francisco Heleodoro GONZALEZ-ROSARIO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 101
Pages: 746–747

Head Matter:
Francisco Heleodoro GONZALEZ-ROSARIO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-73954.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2004.
Decided June 24, 2004.
John R. Guardi, Esq., Attorney at Law, Bellingham, WA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, Margaret J. Perry, Deborah N. Misir, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Franciso Heleodoro Gonzalez-Rosario, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") denial of his motion to reopen after the BIA affirmed the decision of an immigration judge denying his application for suspension of deportation because he failed to establish the requisite hardship. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial because it ultimately rests on the discretionary determination that Gonzalez-Rosario failed to satisfy the "extreme hardship" requirement. See Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (September 30, 1996), § 309(c)(4)(E); Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1152 (9th Cir.1997).
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.