Case Name: Jorge Rodriguez MIRANDA; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-10
Citations: 303 F. App'x 384
Docket Number: No. 05-73497
Parties: Jorge Rodriguez MIRANDA; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 303
Pages: 384–385

Head Matter:
Jorge Rodriguez MIRANDA; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-73497.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 8, 2008.
Filed Dec. 10, 2008.
Michelle Gonzalez, Esquire, Law Office of Michelle Gonzalez, Huntington Park, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Vanessa Lefort, Emily Anne Radford, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: BRUNETTI, SILVERMAN and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jorge Rodriguez Miranda, his wife Gabriela Avila-Peralta, and their three children, Isabel Rodriguez, Mariana Rodri guez, and Gabriel Leyva-Avila, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision affirming the Immigration Judge's denial of their application for cancellation of removal.
We have jurisdiction over Petitioners' constitutional argument. They contend that them right to equal protection is violated because similarly-situated aliens from countries covered under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act ("NACARA") benefit from relaxed requirements for relief. We previously have rejected this argument. See Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 602-03 (9th Cir.2002) ("NACARA easily satisfies the rational basis test[.]"); Ram v. I.N.S., 243 F.3d 510, 517 (9th Cir.2001).
PETITION DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.