
    Jose Guadalupe Cisneros GUTIERREZ; Lilia Salazar Garcia; Nayeli Cisneros Salazar, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-72465.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 1, 2010.
    James G. Roche, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioners.
    CAC-District, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, 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

Jose Guadalupe Cisneros Gutierrez, Lilia Salazar Garcia, and Nayeli Cisneros Salazar, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying their applications for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reviewing de novo questions of law, Garcia-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 334 F.3d 840, 843 (9th Cir.2003), we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency properly concluded that Cisneros Gutierrez was ineligible for cancellation of removal due to his conviction under California Welfare and Institutions Code § 10980(c)(2). See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), 1229(d)(1)(B). Cisneros Gutierrez’s contention that his conviction was automatically reduced to a misdemeanor by operation of California Penal Code § 17(b)(1) and therefore qualified for the petty offense exception is unavailing. See Garcia-Lopez, 334 F.3d at 844-45.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Salazar Garcia failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her U.S. citizen children. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir.2009).

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.
     