Case Name: Ignacio MARTINEZ-PONTIFES, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-04-25
Citations: 62 F. App'x 189
Docket Number: No. 02-70967; INS No. A73-983-676
Parties: Ignacio MARTINEZ-PONTIFES, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before RYMER, KLEINFELD, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 62
Pages: 189–189

Head Matter:
Ignacio MARTINEZ-PONTIFES, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 02-70967.
INS No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 14, 2003.
Decided April 25, 2003.
Before RYMER, KLEINFELD, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
John Ashcroft, Attorney General is the proper respondent. The clerk shall amend the docket to reflect the above caption.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ignacio Martinez-Pontifes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision affirming the Immigration Judge's denial of his application for suspension of deportation. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the determination that Martinez-Pontifes is not entitled to suspension of deportation because he failed to show extreme hardship. See Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1152 (9th Cir.1997).
We have jurisdiction over MartinezPontifes' due process claims pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105a, Kalaw, 133 F.3d at 1150. We find no merit to Martinez-Pontifes' contentions that the BIA provided insufficient reasoning and that his counsel provided ineffective assistance, because Martinez-Pontifes failed to show the proceeding was so fundamentally unfair that he was prevented from reasonably presenting his case. See Ortiz v. INS, 179 F.3d 1148, 1153 (9th Cir.1999).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part, and 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.