
    J. Trinidad Resendiz MORALES; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-73361.
    Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 5, 2005.
    
    Decided Dec. 13, 2005.
    Ronald E. L efe we, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Kurt B. Larson, Melissa Neiman-Kelting, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Martin R. Guajardo, Walter Rafael Pineda, Law Offices of Walter Rafael Pineda, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
    Before GOODWIN, W. FLETCHER, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

J. Trinidad Resendiz Morales and Veronica Nava Medina, husband and wife, and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying them application for cancellation of removal. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review questions of law de novo, Cabrera-Alvarez v. Gonzales, 423 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 2005), and 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 establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005) (hardship determination is unreviewable).

We have considered and reject petitioners’ contention that the IJ used the incorrect standard in his determination regarding hardship. See Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1001, 1006 (9th Cir. 2003).

We do not reach petitioners’ contention regarding good moral character because the hardship finding is dispositive.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     