22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T518,MEMORANDUM Mario Llamas-Gutierrez and Cristina Llamas, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review de novo questions of law. Altamirano v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir.2005). We dis miss in part and deny in part the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ contentions that they did not knowingly and voluntarily consent to their August 23, 1998, expedited removal orders, because it would require us to “nullify the continuing effects of [those] order[s],” which 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(A) bars. Avendano-Ramirez v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 813, 818-19 (9th Cir.2004). Because the agency correctly determined that the expedited removal orders precluded petitioners from estabhshing the continuous physical presence required for cancellation of removal, see Juarez-Ramos v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 509, 512 (9th Cir.2007), we need not reach their remaining contentions. PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T54a,

MEMORANDUM

Mario Llamas-Gutierrez and Cristina Llamas, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review de novo questions of law. Altamirano v. Gonzales, 427 F.3d 586, 591 (9th Cir.2005). We dis miss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioners’ contentions that they did not knowingly and voluntarily consent to their August 23, 1998, expedited removal orders, because it would require us to “nullify the continuing effects of [those] order[s],” which 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(A) bars. Avendano-Ramirez v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 813, 818-19 (9th Cir.2004).

Because the agency correctly determined that the expedited removal orders precluded petitioners from estabhshing the continuous physical presence required for cancellation of removal, see Juarez-Ramos v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 509, 512 (9th Cir.2007), we need not reach their remaining contentions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

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