
    Graciela Cervantes ACOSTA, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-74655.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 7, 2007 .
    Filed Nov. 9, 2007.
    
      Graciela Cervantes Acosta, Pomona, 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, Papú Sandhu, Esq., Stacy S. Paddack, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Peter D. Keisler is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Acting Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Graciela Cervantes Acosta, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, which affirmed an Immigration Judge’s denial of her application for cancellation of removal. We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary determination that Cervantes Acosta failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003).

Cervantes Acosta’s equal protection challenge to the different standards for relief created by the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”) is foreclosed. Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 602-03 (9th Cir.2002) (rejecting equal protection challenge to NACARA provisions affording favorable treatment to aliens from certain war-torn countries and to those who took unusual risks to escape oppressive governments).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.

BETTY B. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge,

specially concurring:

I specially concur to express my concern in this appeal in which petitioner supposedly represents herself, but filed a brief that obviously was prepared by someone else, probably a lawyer. She did not answer the notice of argument and cannot be located. The appeal of necessity was submitted on the briefs. Although the record suggests that she may be eligible for a U Visa because of the fraud of a notario who filed the papers requesting asylum, whoever is currently, behind the scenes, representing her has made no effort to help her apply for or to take the necessary steps to perfect such a claim. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     