Case Name: Alma Lidia Raquel Natareno BLANCO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-08-05
Citations: 288 F. App'x 414
Docket Number: No. 07-73191
Parties: Alma Lidia Raquel Natareno BLANCO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 288
Pages: 414–415

Head Matter:
Alma Lidia Raquel Natareno BLANCO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-73191.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 22, 2008.
Filed Aug. 5, 2008.
Alma Lidia Raquel Natareno Blanco, Oakland, CA, pro se.
OIL, Kurt B. Larson, Esquire, Stacy S. Paddack, Esquire, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: B. FLETCHER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Alma Lidia Raquel Natareno Blanco, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' affirmance of an immigration judge's denial of her application for cancellation of removal on the basis that she failed to demonstrate the requisite hardship to her United States citizen child. Petitioner contends that she met the hardship requirement of 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D). We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's discretionary hardship determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) (2) (B) (i); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir. 2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.