
    Leopoldo ALCARRAZ-ALARCON; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-73933.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
    
    Filed Sept. 14, 2012.
    Leopoldo Alcarraz-Alarcon, Gardena, CA, pro se.
    Elizabeth Alcarraz, Gardena, CA, pro se.
    Isabel Alcarraz, Gardena, CA, pro se.
    Daniel Alcarraz, Gardena, CA, pro se.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, Katherine Ann Smith, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Leopoldo Alcarraz-Alarcon, Elizabeth Alcarraz, Isabel Alcarraz and Daniel Al-carraz, natives and citizens of Peru, petition pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals denying their application for cancellation of removal, and upholding the immigration judge’s denial of their request for a continuance. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part, and deny in part, the petition for review.

Lead petitioners contend that their United States citizen daughter will experience the requisite hardship if they are forced to move to Peru, and therefore the BIA erred in denying their application for cancellation of removal. The agency applied the proper legal standard, and we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that lead petitioners failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual 'hardship to their United States citizen child. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir.2009).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion by affirming the immigration judge’s decision that Alcarraz-Alarcon lacked good cause for a continuance, where the case had been continued many times over the course of seven years, and where the new medical evidence of Elizabeth Alcarraz’s latest medical evaluation would not have significantly added to the hardship evidence. See Ahmed v. Holder, 569 F.3d 1009, 1012 (9th Cir.2009).

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