Case Name: Juan CHAVEZ-ARROYO; Irene Lechuga-Gutierrez, Petitioners v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-13
Citations: 321 F. App'x 386
Docket Number: No. 08-60148
Parties: Juan CHAVEZ-ARROYO; Irene Lechuga-Gutierrez, Petitioners v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 321
Pages: 386–387

Head Matter:
Juan CHAVEZ-ARROYO; Irene Lechuga-Gutierrez, Petitioners v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-60148
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
April 13, 2009.
Jose W. Vega, Law Office of Jose W. Vega, Houston, TX, for Petitioners.
Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, John Clifford Cunningham, Gregory D. Mack, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Sharon A. Hudson, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services, Houston, TX, for Respondent.
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Juan Chavez-Arroyo (Chavez) and Irene Lechuga-Gutierrez (Lechuga), natives and citizens of Mexico, seek a petition for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying their applications for cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. They argue that the BIA violated their due process rights by not sufficiently considering testimony that their son would suffer extreme hardship if they are removed.
We generally review only the BIA's decision except to the extent that the decision of the immigration judge (IJ) influences the BIA. Moin v. Ashcroft, 335 F.3d 415, 418 (5th Cir.2003). With respect to the determination that Chavez and Lechu-ga failed to demonstrate that their son would suffer an "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" as required under § 1229b, we lack jurisdiction to review this purely discretionary decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Sung v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 372, 377 (5th Cir.2007); Rueda v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 831, 831 (5th Cir.2004). We reject Chavez's and Lechuga's attempt to recast what amounts to a disagreement with the weighing and consideration of the relevant factors by the IJ as a constitutional or legal issue. See Hadwani v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 798, 801 (5th Cir.2006).
Because the petitioners did not initiate a request for voluntary departure until after the BIA's grant of voluntary departure had expired, we decline to grant their request and need not consider whether this court even has the authority to extend an expired grant of voluntary departure. See Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 192 (5th Cir.1994); Farzad v. INS, 808 F.2d 1071, 1072 (5th Cir.1987); Compare Bocova v. Gonzales, 412 F.3d 257, 266 (1st Cir.2005).
DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.