Case Name: Martin PINEDA MARTINEZ; Heladia Gonzalez de Pineda, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-29
Citations: 397 F. App'x 417
Docket Number: No. 08-73694
Parties: Martin PINEDA MARTINEZ; Heladia Gonzalez de Pineda, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 397
Pages: 417–417

Head Matter:
Martin PINEDA MARTINEZ; Heladia Gonzalez de Pineda, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-73694.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
Filed Sept. 29, 2010.
Martin Pineda Martinez, Garden Grove, CA, pro se.
Heladia Gonzalez De Pineda, Garden Grove, CA, pro se.
Lisa Marie Arnold, OIL, Stacy Stiffel Paddack, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Martin Pineda Martinez and Heladia Gonzalez de Pineda, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part 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. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).
To the extent petitioners contend that the BIA's streamlined order did not demonstrate sufficient consideration of the hardship factors in denying their cancellation of removal applications, their challenge is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 851 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).