Jose Daniel Estrada Silva; Antonieta Estrada 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).
KS/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE DANIEL ESTRADA SILVA;
ANTONIETA ESTRADA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-75819
Agency Nos. A096-364-796
A096-364-840
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Jose Daniel Estrada Silva and Antonieta Estrada, natives and citizens of
Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing
his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for
FILED
JAN 13 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

KS/Research 06-75819 2
cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
dismiss the petition for review.
Petitioners’ contentions that the agency legally erred by applying an
improper hardship standard and by failing to consider relevant hardship factors are
not supported by the record. “Because the [agency] applied the correct legal
standard in this case, and because we may not proceed further to examine its
application of the facts of this case to the ‘exceptional and extremely unusual
hardship’ standard,” we dismiss the petition as to these challenges. See
Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir. 2009).
We lack jurisdiction over petitioners’ constitutional claims. See De
Mercado, 566 F.3d at 816 (discussing jurisdiction over similar “fundamental right
to family unity” due process contention); Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1152 (9th
Cir. 1997) (separation of powers).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --