Case Name: Maria Eugenia Guevara AVILES; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-09
Citations: 204 F. App'x 653
Docket Number: No. 05-76344
Parties: Maria Eugenia Guevara AVILES; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 204
Pages: 653–654

Head Matter:
Maria Eugenia Guevara AVILES; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-76344.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 6, 2006.
Filed Nov. 9, 2006.
Leslie J. Frank, Esq., Frank Greenberg & Simone, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Jeffrey Leist, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Maria Eugenia Aviles and Erasmo Vicario Najera, natives and citizens of Mexico and husband and wife, petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, summarily affirming the immigration judge's denial of their application for cancellation of removal.
We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ's discretionary determination that petitioners failed to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to their United States citizen child or to female petitioner's parents. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir.2005). We also lack jurisdiction to consider the petitioners' due process challenge because the contention is not colorable. See id. at 930; see also Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001).
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.