Cantu

MEMORANDUM **

Candido Sandoval Cantu and Lucila Beltran Chamu, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal on the grounds that Beltran Chamu failed to establish ten years of continuous physical presence in the United States and Sandoval Cantu failed to meet the hardship requirement. We deny in part and grant in part the petition for review.

The petitioners contend that the BIA’s summary decision deprived them of due process. This contention is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845 (9th Cir.2003).

The petitioners contend that they were denied equal protection because a greater showing of hardship is required for cancellation of removal than for relief under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act. This contention lacks merit. See Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 602-03 (9th Cir.2002).

Beltran Chamu contends that the IJ erred and violated her constitutional rights in concluding that she failed to meet the continuous physical presence requirement of 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A).…