Case Name: Jose Mauricio CORTES; et al., Petitioners, 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 842
Docket Number: No. 02-74088; Agency Nos. A75-477-368, A75-477-369
Parties: Jose Mauricio CORTES; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 84
Pages: 842–842

Head Matter:
Jose Mauricio CORTES; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-74088.
Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dee. 8, 2003.
Decided Dec. 18, 2003.
Victor D. Nieblas Pradis, Law Office of Victor D. Nieblas Pradis, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Anthony P. Nicastro, Esq., Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Marion E. Guyton, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Mauricio Cortes and his wife Lilia Cortes-Barrranza, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") denial of their motion to reopen to seek cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction.
The BIA denied petitioner's motion to reopen both because it was untimely and because petitioners could not show "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship," and thus could not show prima facie eligibility for cancellation of removal. We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's denial because it ultimately rests on the discretionary determination that petitioners failed to satisfy the "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" requirement. See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 846 (9th Cir.2003); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003).
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.