Case Name: Felipe RUIZ-OROZCO; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-04-06
Citations: 92 F. App'x 574
Docket Number: No. 03-71125
Parties: Felipe RUIZ-OROZCO; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: THOMAS, W. FLETCHER and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 92
Pages: 574–574

Head Matter:
Felipe RUIZ-OROZCO; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-71125.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 1, 2004.
Decided April 6, 2004.
Felipe Ruiz-Orozco, Oxnard, CA, pro se.
Rosa Maria Mendez Banderas, Oxnard, CA, pro se.
Elvira Ruiz Mendez, Oxnard, CA, pro se.
Rosa Isela Ruiz Mendez, Oxnard, CA, pro se.
Vicente Ruiz Mendez, Oxnard, CA, pro se.
Aracely Ruiz Mendez, Oxnard, CA, pro se.
Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Terri J. Scadron, Esq., Genevieve Holm, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: THOMAS, W. FLETCHER and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Felipe Ruiz Orozco, his wife and their children, all natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision affirming an immigration judge's denial of their application for cancellation of removal.
Petitioners contend that they met the requirements for cancellation of removal and the BIA failed to meaningfully address their hardship claim.
We dismiss the petition because we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's discretionary determination that petitioners failed to satisfy the hardship requirement for cancellation of removal. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 891 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
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.