Case ID: f-appx_284/html/0497-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Alvarado Herrera CORADO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-74482.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 18, 2008.
    
    Filed July 3, 2008.
    Alvarado Herrera Corado, pro se.
    CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Kurt B. Larson, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Stacy S. Paddack, for Respondent.
    
      Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alvarado Herrera-Corado, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding an Immigration Judge’s order denying his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary determination that an applicant has failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 891 (9th Cir.2003). Herrera-Corado’s contention that the IJ and the BIA failed to adequately consider and weigh all the evidence of hardship does not raise a colorable due process 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 color-able constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.”).

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