Case ID: f-appx_272/html/0561-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

David Ledezma MORALES, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-70911.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 18, 2008.
    
    Filed March 27, 2008.
    David Ledezma Morales, San Bernadino, CA, pro se.
    District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, T.G. NELSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

David Ledezma Morales, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals decision summarily affirming the immigration judge’s denial of petitioner’s application for cancellation of removal.

We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s challenge to the IJ’s extreme hardship determination because it is a nonreviewable discretionary determination. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.2003) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)). Petitioner’s conclusory allegation that his deportation proceedings constituted a due process violation does not constitute a colorable constitutional claim. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).

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