Case Name: Diego Araiza MANCILLA, Petitioner, 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: 192 F. App'x 706
Docket Number: No. 04-76612
Parties: Diego Araiza MANCILLA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCON, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 192
Pages: 706–708

Head Matter:
Diego Araiza MANCILLA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-76612.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Decided July 27, 2006.
Diego Araiza Mancilla, Bakersfield, 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, Linda S. Wendtland, Esq., Luis E. Perez, Esq., 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
Diego Araiza Mancilla, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order affirming an immigration judge's decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings. See Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review.
The immigration judge concluded that Mancilla was not eligible for cancellation of removal because he did not have a qualifying relative who might suffer "exceptional and extremely unusual" hardship upon his removal. Contrary to Mancilla's contentions, Congress comported with equal protection when it repealed suspension of deportation, and replaced it with cancellation of removal as the available form of relief for aliens who were placed in removal proceedings on or after April 1, 1997. See Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1108 (9th Cir.2003); Hemandez-Mezquita v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 1161,1163-65 (9th Cir.2002).
Mancilla's equal protection challenge to the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act ("NACARA") is foreclosed by Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 602-03 (9th Cir.2002) (rejecting equal protection challenge to NA-CARA's favorable treatment of aliens from some countries over those from other countries).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
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.