filing pro se, raises three challenges: (1) whether the hardship standard for cancellation of removal violates equal protection, (2) whether the IJ’s finding on the ten years’ continuous presence requirement was correct, and (3) whether the IJ’s finding on exceptional and extremely unusual hardship was correct. Martinez’s claim that he was denied equal protection because he was required to meet legal standards not imposed on aliens covered by the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997 (“NACARA”) is foreclosed by this court’s decisions in Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 602-03 (9th Cir.2002) (rejecting equal protection challenge to more lenient hardship standard based on nationality under NACARA), and Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 517 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we deny Martinez’s equal
holding that an aliens express waiver of his right to appeal to the bia deprives this court of jurisdiction to consider the aliens subsequent petition for review holding that nacaras policy of favoring aliens from specific wartorn countries must be upheld because it stems from rational diplomatic decision to encourage such aliens to remain in the united states holding that the crime of bringing aliens to the united states is complete when the initial transporter who brings the aliens to the united states ceases to transport them holding that the failure to notify aliens counsel of an order to appear for deportation violated the aliens statutory right to counsel holding that an alien parent may not establish a derivative claim for asylum by pointing to potential hardship to the aliens united states citizen child in the event of the aliens deportation