Case Name: Delfino MARTINEZ-SANTOS, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-18
Citations: 84 F. App'x 837
Docket Number: No. 02-73271; Agency No. A78-539-716
Parties: Delfino MARTINEZ-SANTOS, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 84
Pages: 837–837

Head Matter:
Delfino MARTINEZ-SANTOS, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-73271.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 8, 2003.
Decided Dec. 18, 2003.
Kevin A. Bove, Esq., Attorney at Law, Escondido, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, District Director, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Kurt B. Larson, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Delfino Martinez-Santos, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") summary affirmance of an immigration judge's ("U") decision denying him cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review whether an alien has demonstrated the requisite "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" for cancellation of removal, see Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003), as well as whether the BIA improperly streamlined this appeal of a cancellation of removal decision in which only this discretionary factor is in dispute, see Carriche v. Ashcroft, No. 02-71143, 2003 WL 22770121, at *8 (9th Cir. Nov.24, 2003).
Moreover, Martinez-Santos's contentions relating to the IJ's hardship determination do not state a colorable due process claim. See Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267,1271 (9th Cir.2001).
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.