
    Balbina Lizama GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-70646.
    Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 23, 2005.
    
    Decided April 11, 2005.
    Balbina Lizama Garcia, San Juan Capistrano, CA, pro se.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Patricia A. Smith, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Alberto 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).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Balbina Lizama Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s denial of her application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the denial of Garcia’s cancellation of removal application because the BIA denied relief, in part, for failure to demonstrate the requisite “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship.” See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003). We do not reach whether Garcia established ten years of continuous physical presence because her failure to establish the requisite hardship is dispositive. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1); Romero-Torres, 327 F.3d at 889 (noting that an applicant must establish continuous physical presence, good moral character and hardship to qualify for relief).

To the extent Garcia contends that the provisions of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act violate the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause, this argument is foreclosed by Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 602-03 (9th Cir.2002).

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.
     