Case Name: Eduardo LOPEZ-HERNANDEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-28
Citations: 261 F. App'x 990
Docket Number: No. 06-74384
Parties: Eduardo LOPEZ-HERNANDEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 261
Pages: 990–991

Head Matter:
Eduardo LOPEZ-HERNANDEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-74384.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 20, 2007.
Filed Dec. 28, 2007.
Eduardo Lopez-Hernandez, N. Hollywood, CA, pro se.
Elba Margarita Estrada, N. Hollywood, CA, pro se.
Ana Judith Lopez Estrada, N. Hollywood, CA, pro se.
Elizabeth Lopez Estrada, N. Hollywood, CA, pro se.
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, Peter H. Matson, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Michael B. Mukasey is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Eduardo Lopez-Hernandez, his wife Elba Margarita Estrada, and their two daughters, seek review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding an immigration judge's ("IJ") order denying the parents' applications for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ's discretionary determination that petitioners failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.