Case Name: Maria Lorena GALLO-VALLECILLO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-23
Citations: 89 F. App'x 74
Docket Number: No. 02-71172; Agency No. A70-929-415
Parties: Maria Lorena GALLO-VALLECILLO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before FERNANDEZ, W. FLETCHER, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 89
Pages: 74–74

Head Matter:
Maria Lorena GALLO-VALLECILLO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-71172.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 17, 2004.
Decided Feb. 23, 2004.
Walter Rafael Pineda, Law Offices of Walter Rafael Pineda, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Christine A. Bither, Margaret K. Taylor, 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
Maria Lorena Gallo-Valleeillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") summary affirmance of an immigration judge's ("LJ") decision denying her application for asylum and cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b). Because the BIA affirmed the IJ's decision without opinion, we review the IJ's decision as the final agency determination. See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 849 (9th Cir.2003). We deny the petition for review.
Gallo-Vallecillo's due process challenge to the BIA's summary affirmance of the IJ's decision is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche. See id. at 849-52.
Gallo-Vallecillo's due process challenge to the IJ's determination that she failed to demonstrate "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" fails because the IJ's interpretation of the hardship requirement comports with the statutory language and congressional intent. See Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1001, 1004-06 (9th Cir.2003); 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
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.