Case ID: f-appx_210/html/0629-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Delfina MAYORAL-MORGA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-75675.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 4, 2006.
    
    Filed Dec. 8, 2006.
    Kevin A. Bove, ESQ., Escondido, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAS-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Delfina Moyoral-Morga, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions 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.

We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s challenge to the agency’s discretionary determination that she failed to demonstrate exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her qualifying relatives. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir. 2003). This court retains jurisdiction over petitions for review that raise colorable constitutional claims or questions of law, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2003). We conclude, however, that petitioner’s challenges to the immigration judge’s interpretation and application of the hardship factors are an abuse of discretion argument cloaked as a legal or constitutional question. See Bazua-Cota, v. Gonzales, 466 F.3d 747, 749 (9th Cir. 2006).

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.