Case Name: Juana JIMENEZ, Miguel Jimenez-Rojas, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-14
Citations: 357 F. App'x 936
Docket Number: Nos. 06-72051, 06-72054
Parties: Juana JIMENEZ, Miguel Jimenez-Rojas, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 357
Pages: 936–936

Head Matter:
Juana JIMENEZ, Miguel Jimenez-Rojas, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Nos. 06-72051, 06-72054.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
Filed Dec. 14, 2009.
Barbara K. Strickland, Esquire, Law Offices of Barbara K. Strickland, San Diego, CA, for Petitioners.
Linda S. Wendtland, Esquire, Claire L. Workman, Esquire, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, CAS-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, 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
Juana Jimenez and Miguel Jimenez-Rojas, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") removal order (No. 06-72051), and the former Legalization Appeals Unit's ("LAU") order dismissing Jimenez-Rojas' appeal from the denial of his Special Agricultural Worker ("SAW") application (No. 06-72054). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a SAW application. Perez-Martin v. Ashcroft, 894 F.3d 752, 758 (9th Cir.2005). We dismiss the petition for review in No. 06-72051 and deny the petition for review in No. 06-72054.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's discretionary determination that petitioners failed to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); see also Martinez-Ro-sas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).
We also lack jurisdiction over petitioners' remaining contentions in No. 06-72051, which are not colorable. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir.2009) (any challenge to an IJ's discretionary determination must present a colorable claim).
The LAU did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Jimenez-Rojas' SAW appeal where Jimenez-Rojas provided insufficient evidence of qualifying employment. See Perez-Martin, 394 F.3d at 759-60 (to overcome derogatory government evidence, an applicant must provide enough evidence to show qualifying employment "as a matter of just and reasonable inference") (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1160(b)(3)(B)(iii)).
No. 06-72051: PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
No. 06-72054: PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.