Case ID: f-appx_469/html/0512-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Eduardo ROMERO-ZEPEDA and Elvia Romero, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71221.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
    
    Feb. 29, 2012.
    Eduardo Romero-Zepeda, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Elvia Romero, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Petitioners Eduardo Romero-Zepeda and Elvia Romero, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of then* application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that petitioners failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to their U.S. citizen children. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir.2009).

Petitioners’ contention that the IJ failed to properly consider and weigh all evidence of hardship does not raise a color-able due process claim. 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.