Case Name: Maria Guadalupe Garcia ROCHEL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-26
Citations: 320 F. App'x 652
Docket Number: No. 07-74746
Parties: Maria Guadalupe Garcia ROCHEL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 320
Pages: 652–653

Head Matter:
Maria Guadalupe Garcia ROCHEL, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-74746.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2008.
Filed March 26, 2009.
Richard Clay Mendez, Esquire, Law Offices of Mendez & Lopez, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Jeffery R. Leist, Trial, John D. Williams, Esquire, Stacy Stiffel Paddack, 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: LEAVY, HAWKINS and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Maria Guadalupe Garcia Rochel, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision dismissing her appeal of an immigration judge's denial of her application for cancellation of removal, based on her failure to establish an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her United States citizen children and legal permanent resident father. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's discretionary determination that petitioner failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir.2009). Petitioner's contention that the Board failed to adequately consider and weigh all evidence of hardship does not raise a colorable 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.