Case Name: Esperanza ROBLES-CRUZ; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-16
Citations: 115 F. App'x 409
Docket Number: No. 03-74489
Parties: Esperanza ROBLES-CRUZ; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 115
Pages: 409–409

Head Matter:
Esperanza ROBLES-CRUZ; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-74489.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.
Decided Dec. 16, 2004.
Esperanza Robles-Cruz, Maywood, CA, pro se.
Jorge Luis Robles-Cruz, Maywood, CA, pro se.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Esperanza Robles-Cruz and her husband Jorge Robles-Cruz, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") affirming the immigration judge's denial of their applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review constitutional claims de novo, Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir.2002), and we deny the petition.
The Petitioners contend that it is a violation of equal protection to treat aliens with U.S. citizen relatives differently than aliens without U.S. citizen relatives. We are unpersuaded by this contention because the differential treatment is not wholly irrational. See Hernandez-Mezquita v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 1161, 1164-65 (9th Cir.2002) (holding that petitioner must show that classification is wholly irrational in order to demonstrate equal protection violation).
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.