Case Name: Alejandro Mancilla BAEZ; Maria Del Rosario Barajas Calzada, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-28
Citations: 262 F. App'x 49
Docket Number: No. 06-74457
Parties: Alejandro Mancilla BAEZ; Maria Del Rosario Barajas Calzada, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 262
Pages: 49–50

Head Matter:
Alejandro Mancilla BAEZ; Maria Del Rosario Barajas Calzada, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-74457.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 20, 2007 .
Filed Dec. 28, 2007.
James E. Root, Esq., Law Offices of James E. Root, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
CAC-District, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Securi ty, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Lisa M. Arnold, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Michael B. Mukasey is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Alejandro Mancilla Baez and his wife Maria Del Rosario Barajas Calzada, seek review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") order denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ's discretionary determination that petitioners failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.