
    Melchor Inza Cruz SANTOS; Reyna Santos, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-70021.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 6, 2006.
    
    Filed April 25, 2006.
    Nancy E. Miller, Esq., Robert L. Reeves & Associates, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioners.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Lagu-na Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Thom W. Hussey, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: D.W. NELSON, O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges, and JONES, District Judge.
    
    
      
       Alberto R. Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       xhe Honorable Robert C. Jones, District Judge for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Melchor Inza Cruz Santos, a native and citizen of the Philippines, and his wife Reyna Santos, a native and citizen of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affir-mance without opinion of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their applications for cancellation of removal. Petitioners subsequently filed a motion to reopen the case alleging that the IJ violated their due process rights, which the BIA denied. Petitioners did not file a petition for review of that decision.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that the Petitioners failed to establish “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.” See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 891 (9th Cir.2003). We also lack jurisdiction to consider the BIA’s denial of the Petitioners’ motion to reopen based on an alleged violation of due process rights because the Petitioners did not file a petition for review within 30 days of that decision. See Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1183 n. 3 (9th Cir.2004) (indicating that petitioner must file separate petition for review from denial of motion to reopen).

The voluntary departure period was stayed, and that stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate. See Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741, 747 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 
      
       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.
     