
    Maria Cristina ALDACO-DE CARRANZA, a.k.a. Maria Cristina Aldaco, a.k.a. Maria Cristina Aldaco-Elias, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73145.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2011.
    
    Filed March 23, 2011.
    Maria Cristina Aldaco-De Carranza, Fullerton, CA, pro se.
    Joubin Nasseri, Nasseri Law Group, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Carol Federighi, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jonathan Aaron Robbins, Esquire, Jem C. Sponzo, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Maria Cristina Aldaco-De Carranza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings. Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Contrary to Aldaco-De Carranza’s contention, Congress comported with equal protection when it repealed suspension of deportation and replaced it with cancellation of removal as the available form of relief for aliens who were placed in removal proceedings on or after April 1, 1997. See Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1108 (9th Cir.2003); Hernandez-Mezquita v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 1161, 1163— 65 (9th Cir.2002).

We do not consider Aldaco-De Carranza’s contentions regarding hardship and her convictions, because her failure to establish continuous physical presence is dis-positive. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Aldaco-De Carranza’s challenge to the BIA’s October 8, 2008, order denying her motion to reopen because she did not timely petition for review of that order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1); Singh v. INS, 315 F.3d 1186, 1188 (9th Cir.2003).

Joubin Nasseri’s motion to withdraw as counsel for petitioner is granted. The Clerk shall change the docket to reflect that petitioner is proceeding pro se. Petitioner’s address is: 1501 W. West Ave., Fullerton, CA 92883.

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