Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): See id. We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Sosa failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.2003). Sosa’s contention that the agency deprived him of due process by misapplying the law to the facts of his case and by disregarding their evidence of hardship is not supported by the record and does not amount to a colorable constitutional 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 colorable constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.”); see also Sanchez-Cruz v. INS, 255 F.3d 775, 779 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part and 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that misapplication of career offender enhancement in light of intervening case law not a miscarriage of justice because guideline range still within statutory maximum authorized (B) holding that whether consent was valid under the fourth amendment is a question of law to be reviewed de novo (C) holding that a factual sufficiency complaint in a parental termination case may be reviewed even though it was not preserved in the trial court (D) holding that the misapplication of case law may not be reviewed (E) holding that a sufficiency challenge must be preserved in the trial court in a parental termination case to be reviewed on appeal
Output (English): holding that misapplication of career offender enhancement in light of intervening case law not a miscarriage of justice because guideline range still within statutory maximum authorized