Case ID: f-appx_198/html/0657-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Catalina Quezada TORRES, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-72822.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 21, 2006.
    
    Filed Aug. 24, 2006.
    Catalina Quezada Torres, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, REINHARDT, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Catalina Quezada Torres, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming, without opinion, the results of an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for cancellation of removal.

We lack jurisdiction to entertain this petition for review because the immigration judge’s discretionary • determination that Quezada Torres failed to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her United States citizen children is unreviewable. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir. 2005). Quezada Torres’ contention that the immigration judge denied her due process, by failing “to properly evaluate the entire [ejvidence and consider all the issues,” is not a colorable constitutional or legal claim over which we have jurisdiction. Id. at 930 (“[tjraditional 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 may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.