Case ID: f-appx_365/html/0900-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Maria De Jesus FUENTES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71997.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Feb. 22, 2010.
    Maria De Jesus Fuentes, Long Beach, CA, pro se.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Aviva L. Poczter, Esq., Molly L. De-busschere, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument.
      
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Maria De Jesus Fuentes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals summarily affirming the immigration judge’s denial of her application for cancellation of removal due to her failure to establish the requisite hardship to her United States citizen children.

Fuentes contends that the immigration judge violated her due process rights when the IJ failed to address all the hardship factors cumulatively. We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that petitioner failed to show extreme hardship. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003). In addition, we lack jurisdiction over petitioners’ contention that the BIA failed to consider the cumulative impact of their hardship evidence because it is not supported by the record and does not amount to a colorable constitutional claim. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir.2009).

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