Case Name: Nicolas LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-09-23
Citations: 109 F. App'x 952
Docket Number: No. 03-72356; Agency No. A79-539-516
Parties: Nicolas LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before PREGERSON, T.G. NELSON, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 109
Pages: 952–953

Head Matter:
Nicolas LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-72356.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2004.
Decided Sept. 23, 2004.
Nicolas Lopez, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before PREGERSON, T.G. NELSON, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Nicolas Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") denial of his application for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional claims, Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition for review.
Lopez contends that the IJ violated his right to equal protection by not allowing him to apply for suspension of deportation, which does not require showing "exceptional and extremely unusual" hardship to a qualifying relative. This contention is unpersuasive because Lopez was served with the notice to appear in 2001, when suspension of deportation relief was no longer available. See Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1108 (9th Cir.2003). Accordingly, Lopez's equal protection contention fails. See Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 602-03 (9th Cir.2002).
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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.