FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 29 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HILMA FLORIDALMA RODAS DE No. 09-71342
UCAN; JOSE DOLORES UCAN-DIAZ,
Agency Nos. A072-682-837
Petitioners, A072-682-836
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted March 8, 2011 **
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Hilma Floridalma Rodas de Ucan, a native and citizen of Guatemala, and
Jose Dolores Ucan-Diaz, a native and citizen of Mexico, petition for review of the
Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order affirming without opinion an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their applications for cancellation of
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
questions of law, and review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s decision whether to
summarily dismiss an appeal. Singh v. Gonzales, 416 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir.
2005). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary determination that
petitioners failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a
qualifying relative. Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir.
2005). Petitioners’ contentions that the IJ applied an incorrect hardship standard
and failed to give adequate consideration to some of their hardship evidence are
not supported by the record and do not amount to colorable legal or constitutional
claims over which we have jurisdiction. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d
975, 979-80 (9th Cir. 2009).
The BIA did not abuse its discretion by deciding not to summarily dismiss
petitioners’ appeal under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(2)(i)(E), and we lack jurisdiction to
the extent petitioners challenge the BIA’s decision to affirm without opinion. See
Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 854 (9th Cir. 2003) (where the IJ’s
decision is unreviewable, so is the BIA’s decision to streamline).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
2 09-71342