Case Name: Lilia Cruz GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-01
Citations: 196 F. App'x 470
Docket Number: No. 04-72249
Parties: Lilia Cruz GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 196
Pages: 470–471

Head Matter:
Lilia Cruz GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-72249.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Filed Aug. 1, 2006.
Susan E. Hill, Hill & Piibe, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
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, Papú Sandhu, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Keith Bernstein, Office of Immigration Litigation Civil Division, 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
Lilia Cruz Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying her application for cancellation of removal. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 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 dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Cruz Gonzalez's contention that the agency misapplied relevant case law in its hardship determination. See Sanchez-Cruz v. INS, 255 F.3d 775, 779 (9th Cir.2001).
Contrary to Cruz Gonzalez's contention, the agency's interpretation of the hardship standard falls within the broad range authorized by the statute. See Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1001, 1004-06 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.