Court Opinion

ID: 8610183
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 07:44:45.304477+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:19.988435
License: Public Domain

MEMORANDUM **
Rene Gonzalez-Sotelo and Isabel Cristina Jimenez seek review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming an immigration judge’s order denying their application for cancellation of removal. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings. See Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. *6712001). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary determination that an applicant has failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.2003).
The petitioners’ contention that the hardship standard for cancellation of removal violates equal protection is unavailing, because the citizen child of a person unlawfully present in the United States is not similarly situated to the citizen child of a person lawfully present in the United States. See Dillingham v. INS, 267 F.3d 996, 1007 (9th Cir.2001) (“In order to succeed on his [equal protection] challenge, the petitioner must establish that his treatment differed from that of similarly situated persons.”)
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.