
    Antonio TORRES-PIEDRA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-60263.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    May 11, 2004.
    Daniel M. Kowalski, Austin, TX, for Petitioner.
    Kenneth L. Pasquarell, Acting District Director, US Immigration & Naturalization Service, San Antonio, TX, Thomas Ward Hussey, Director, Mark C. Walters, Leslie Cayer Ohta, US Department of Justice, Civil Division, John Ashcroft, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Caryl G. Thompson, US Immigration & Naturalization Service, Attn. Joe A. Aguilar, New Orleans, LA, for Respondent.
    Before JOLLY, WIENER, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Petitioner Antonio Torres-Piedra (“Torres”) petitions this court for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) summarily affirming the order of the Immigration Judge (IJ) that denied Torres’s application for cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1). Torres contests the merits of the IJ’s determination that he was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal on the ground of continuous presence and because he faded to demonstrate the requisite hardship. The Respondent has filed a motion requesting that we dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction because the IJ’s determination on hardship is a discretionary one that is immune from judicial review. We agree.

We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary determination that Torres’s children would not suffer an “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” if Torres were deported to Mexico. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D); 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Bravo v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 590, 592 (5th Cir.2003). As the IJ’s determination on hardship is fatal to Torres’s application, and that determination is not subject to judicial review, it would be a hollow act for us to consider the IJ’s finding on continuous presence, much less rule on it. The Respondent’s motion is therefore GRANTED and Torres’s petition DISMISSED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     