
    Jose Andres DIAZ-SOLANO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-72024.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted April 16, 2007.
    
    Filed April 20, 2007.
    Jose Andres Diaz-Solano, Calexico, 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, Stacy S. Paddack, U.S. Department Of Justice Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Andres Diaz-Solano seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding an immigration judge’s order denying his application for cancellation of removal. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings, see Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary determination that Diaz-Solano 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). We do not consider Diaz-Solano’s contention regarding physical presence, because his failure to establish hardship is dispositive.

Diaz-Solano’s equal protection challenge to .the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”) is foreclosed by our decision in Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 602-03 (9th Cir.2002) (“Congress’s decision to afford more favorable treatment to' certain aliens ‘stems from a rational diplomatic decision to encourage such aliens to remain in the United States.’ ”). Diaz Solano’s due process challenge to NACARA also fails. See Hernandez-Mezquita v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir.2002) (rejecting a due process challenge because petitioner failed to demonstrate that he was deprived of a qualifying liberty interest).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     