
    Jose Hernandez AGUILAR; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-74203.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 12, 2007 .
    Filed March 16, 2007.
    Jose Hernandez Aguilar, Bakersfield, CA, pro se.
    Imelda Hernandez Garcia, Bakersfield, CA, pro se.
    Jose Adrian Hernandez Garcia, Bakersfield, CA, pro se.
    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, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before: CANBY, TROTT and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

This petition for review is dismissed with respect to petitioners Jose Hernandez Aguilar and Imelda Hernandez Garcia because this court lacks jurisdiction to review a discretionary decision regarding hardship in the context of cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003). Further, petitioners do not raise any colorable legal or constitutional claims. See Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001). The petition is summarily denied with respect to petitioner Jose Adrian Hernandez Garcia because he does not have a qualifying relative for purposes of cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D); Molina-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (9th Cir.2002).

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal and voluntary departure confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) and Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

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.
     