Case ID: f-appx_360/html/0951-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Maria JIMENEZ-CASTRO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74160.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
    
    Filed Jan. 4, 2010.
    Raul Ray, Esquire, The Law Offices of Raul Ray, San Jose, CA, Russell John Verby, Trial, John D. Williams, Esquire, Katharine Clark, Esquire, Trial, Jennifer Paisner Williams, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, 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 Jimenez-Castro, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“LJ”) decision denying her applications for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure as a matter of discretion. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that Jimenez-Castro did not merit cancellation of removal or voluntary departure as a matter of discretion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); see also Molino-Estrada v. INS, 293 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir.2002).

Jimenez-Castro’s contention that the IJ violated her due process rights by treating her arrests for alien smuggling as criminal convictions is not supported by the record and does not amount to a colorable constitutional claim. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005) (“[Traditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute color-able constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.”).

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