Case Name: Jose Mendez RAMIREZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-28
Citations: 195 F. App'x 559
Docket Number: No. 05-70869
Parties: Jose Mendez RAMIREZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 195
Pages: 559–560

Head Matter:
Jose Mendez RAMIREZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-70869.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Decided July 28, 2006.
Jose Mendez Ramirez, North Hollywood, CA, pro se.
Maria Angelica Perez, North Hollywood, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., 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, Emily A. Radford, Esq., Aviva L. Poczter, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., 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
Jose Mendez Ramirez and Maria Angelica Perez, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's decision ("U") denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001), and we deny the petition for review.
Petitioners are statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal because they lack a qualifying relative. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(d).
Petitioners' equal protection challenge to the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act ("NACARA") is foreclosed by our decision in Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 602-03 (9th Cir.2002) ("Congress's decision to afford more favorable treatment to certain aliens 'stems from a rational diplomatic decision to encourage such aliens to remain in the United States" ').
Petitioners' due process challenge to the BIA's decision is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 851 (9th Cir.2003) (no due process violation for the BIA to affirm the IJ's decision without issuing an opinion.).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
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.