Case Name: Ramona Perez SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-25
Citations: 88 F. App'x 253
Docket Number: No. 02-71379; Agency No. A75-591-852
Parties: Ramona Perez SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before FERNANDEZ, W. FLETCHER, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 88
Pages: 253–254

Head Matter:
Ramona Perez SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-71379.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 17, 2004.
Decided Feb. 25, 2004.
Judith L. Wood, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Los Angeles District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Anh-Thu P. Mai, Margaret K. Taylor, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before FERNANDEZ, W. FLETCHER, 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
Ramona Perez Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision summarily affirming the Immigration Judge's ("IJ") denial of her application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction over the IJ's "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" determination because it involves an exercise of discretion and Sanchez did not allege a colorable due process claim. See Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001).
Sanchez's contention that the BIA's streamlining procedures violate due process is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 850-51 (9th Cir. 2003).
All remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
PETITION DISMISSED in part and DENIED 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.