Case Name: Agustin Renteria PALACIOS; Cipriana Valladares Rojas, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-19
Citations: 146 F. App'x 227
Docket Number: No. 04-74187; Agency Nos. A95-180-897, A95-180-898
Parties: Agustin Renteria PALACIOS; Cipriana Valladares Rojas, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before HALL, T.G. NELSON and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 146
Pages: 227–227

Head Matter:
Agustin Renteria PALACIOS; Cipriana Valladares Rojas, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-74187.
Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 11, 2005.
Decided Oct. 19, 2005.
Agustín Renteria Palacios, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
Cipriana Valladares Rojas, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA; Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA; Genevieve Holm, Esq., and Earle B. Wilson, Esq. DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before HALL, T.G. NELSON and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Agustín Renteria Palacios and Cipriana Valladares Rojas, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order affirming without opinion an immigration judge's ("IJ") order denying their applications for cancellation of removal. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Even construed liberally, petitioners' pro se brief does not challenge the IJ's determination that Valladares Rojas lacked good moral character. Accordingly, petitioners have waived the good moral character issue. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).
We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ's discretionary hardship determination. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 888 (9th Cir.2003).
The voluntary departure period was stayed, and that stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate. See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED 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.