MEMORANDUM**

1. We lack jurisdiction to decide whether Pates should have been placed in suspension of deportation proceedings rather than cancellation of removal proceedings. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g); see also Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft, 291 F.3d 594, 598-99 (9th Cir. 2002).

2. Pates’s claim that the cancellation of removal statute is unconstitutional because it requires a child to be under twenty-one years of age to be a qualifying relative also fails. Because children under twenty-one are more likely to need continuous parental contact and involvement with their daily lives, there is a rational basis supporting this classification. See Garberding v. INS, 30 F.3d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1994).

DISMISSED IN PART; DENIED IN PART.