Case Name: Jose De Jesus Castellon PLASCENCIA; Maria De Jesus Flores-Suarez, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-31
Citations: 194 F. App'x 490
Docket Number: No. 05-72879
Parties: Jose De Jesus Castellon PLASCENCIA; Maria De Jesus Flores-Suarez, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 194
Pages: 490–491

Head Matter:
Jose De Jesus Castellon PLASCENCIA; Maria De Jesus Flores-Suarez, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-72879.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Filed July 31, 2006.
Jose De Jesus Castellón Plascencia, Mira Loma, CA, pro se.
Maria De Jesus Flores-Suarez, Mira Loma, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose De Jesus Castellón Plascencia and Maria De Jesus Flores-Suarez, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings. See Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001). We deny the petition for review.
Petitioners' contention that the hardship standard for cancellation of removal violates equal protection is unavailing, because the United States citizen child of an illegal immigrant is not similarly situated to the United States citizen child of a person lawfully present in the United States. See Dillingham v. INS, 267 F.3d 996, 1007 (9th Cir.2001) ("In order to succeed on his [equal protection] challenge, the petitioner must establish that his treatment differed from that of similarly situated persons.").
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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.