Case Name: Mario Rene Aguilar LORENZANA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-16
Citations: 224 F. App'x 670
Docket Number: No. 06-72335
Parties: Mario Rene Aguilar LORENZANA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 224
Pages: 670–671

Head Matter:
Mario Rene Aguilar LORENZANA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-72335.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2007 .
Filed March 16, 2007.
Mario Rene Aguilar Lorenzana, Fresno, CA, pro se.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Mario Rene Aguilar-Lorenzana, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision adopting and affirming an immigration judge's decision denying his application for cancellation of removal on the ground that he did not meet the hardship requirement of 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D). As Aguilar-Lorenzana acknowledges, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)® deprives us of jurisdiction to review the agency's discretionary hardship determination. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005). He contends, rather, that the Board and IJ denied him due process by failing to consider all of the relevant factors, including evidence of crime in Guatemala. Because the IJ discussed this evidence in his decision, Aguilar-Lorenzana has not raised a color-able due process claim conferring jurisdiction on us. See id. We therefore dismiss the petition for review for lack of 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.