Martin Pineda Martinez; Heladia Gonzalez De Pineda v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTIN PINEDA MARTINEZ;
HELADIA GONZALEZ DE PINEDA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-73694
Agency Nos. A096-064-308
A096-064-309
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 13, 2010**
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMTIH, Circuit Judges.
Martin Pineda Martinez and Heladia Gonzalez de Pineda, natives and
citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”)
FILED
SEP 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-73694 2
removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 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. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424
F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005).
To the extent petitioners contend that the BIA’s streamlined order did not
demonstrate sufficient consideration of the hardship factors in denying their
cancellation of removal applications, their challenge is foreclosed by Falcon
Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 851 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --