
    Elsa VILLALOBOS GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-74622.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
    
    Filed Jan. 19, 2010.
    Elsa Villalobos Garcia, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
    Samia Naseem, OIL, John Clifford Cunningham, I, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ — 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: BEEZER, TROTT, 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

Elsa Villalobos Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from the Immigration judge’s decision denying her application for cancellation of removal.

The BIA determined that petitioner is ineligible for cancellation of removal because she lacks a qualifying relative. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(d); Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (9th Cir.2002). Petitioner alleged that the qualifying relative provision of 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D) violates the Equal Protection Clause because there is no rational basis for distinguishing between aliens who have qualifying relatives and those who do not for purposes of cancellation of removal relief. Petitioner’s challenge to the constitutionality of the statute is foreclosed. See Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1108 (9th Cir.2003) (holding that placing aliens in removal, rather than deportation, proceedings does not by itself amount to a due process violation); Hernandez-Mezquita v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 1161, 1163-65 (9th Cir.2002) (no equal protection violation arising from placing aliens in removal rather than deportation proceedings).

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