Case ID: f-appx_194/html/0487-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Pablo Angel Martin CAMPO-DIAZ; Gloria Cedillo-Olivarez, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-73367.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 24, 2006.
    
    Filed July 31, 2006.
    Robert F. Jacobs, Esq., Law Offices of Robert F. Jacobs, Downey, CA, for Petitioners.
    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, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The Clerk is directed to correct the docket to reflect that Cedillo-Olivarez is also a petitioner.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Pablo Angel Martin Campo-Diaz and Gloria Cedillo-Olivarez, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

Petitioners’ contention that the IJ violated their due process rights by disregarding and misconstruing their evidence concerning Cedillo-Olivarez’s Type 1 diabetes 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 colorable constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.