
    Cliceria Genis GALINDO, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-72354.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 12, 2004.
    
    Decided Jan. 15, 2004.
    Cliceria Genis Galindo, pro se, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization, Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Los Angeles District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal, Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Francesco Isgro, Attorney, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before BEEZER, HALL and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The court sua sponte changes the docket to reflect that John Ashcroft, Attorney General, is the proper respondent. The Clerk shall amend the docket to reflect the above caption.
    
    
      
      The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Cliceria Genis Galindo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying reconsideration of its affirmance without opinion of the Immigration Judge’s denial of her application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition in part and deny the petition in part.

We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary determination that an alien failed to establish “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.” See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.2003).

Galindo’s contention that the BIA’s opinion insufficiently articulated its reasons for denying relief is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 848-49 (9th Cir.2003).

Galindo’s contention that her equal protection rights were violated is foreclosed by Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 517 (9th Cir.2001).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED, in part, and 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.
     