Case Name: Luis CABRERA-CAMPOS, a.k.a. Luis Campos-Cabrera, a.k.a. Jesus Garcia Miranda, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-13
Citations: 523 F. App'x 446
Docket Number: No. 12-70463
Parties: Luis CABRERA-CAMPOS, a.k.a. Luis Campos-Cabrera, a.k.a. Jesus Garcia Miranda, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 523
Pages: 446–447

Head Matter:
Luis CABRERA-CAMPOS, a.k.a. Luis Campos-Cabrera, a.k.a. Jesus Garcia Miranda, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-70463.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 10, 2013.
Filed June 13, 2013.
David Belaire Landry, Esquire, Law Office of David Landry, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
OIL, Robert Michael Stalzer, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Luis Cabrera-Campos, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's denial of cancellation of removal as a matter of discretion. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's determination that Cabrera-Campos's application for cancellation of removal did not warrant a favorable exercise of discretion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)© (barring review of denials of discretionary relief). Cabrera-Campos's contentions that the agency applied an incorrect standard of review, failed to consider relevant evidence, and was biased are not supported by the record and are not colorable claims invoking our jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005) ("[Tjraditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would invoke our 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.