Case Name: Pilar JIMENEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-08
Citations: 211 F. App'x 596
Docket Number: No. 05-70957
Parties: Pilar JIMENEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 211
Pages: 596–596

Head Matter:
Pilar JIMENEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-70957.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 4, 2006.
Filed Dec. 8, 2006.
Pilar Jimenez, Bell Gardens, 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, Michael P. Lindemann, Esq., Christopher C. Fuller, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Pilar Jimenez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' summary affirmance of an immigration judge's decision denying her application for cancellation of removal on the ground that she failed to establish that her removal would cause her two United States citizen, children exceptional and extremely unusual hardship, as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) deprives us of jurisdiction to review the discretionary hardship determination. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir.2005). We therefore dismiss the petition for review in part. Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2003), forecloses Jimenez's contention that the Board denied her due process in issuing a summary decision. We therefore deny the petition for review in part.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part.
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.