Case Name: Maria Eugenia Ayala ROBLEDO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-16
Citations: 167 F. App'x 620
Docket Number: No. 04-73101
Parties: Maria Eugenia Ayala ROBLEDO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 167
Pages: 620–621

Head Matter:
Maria Eugenia Ayala ROBLEDO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-73101.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submit Feb. 13, 2006.
Decided Feb. 16, 2006.
Gary Olive, Law Office of Gary Olive, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
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, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Nancy E. Friedman, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, 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
Maria Eugenia Ayala Robledo, native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision affirming an immigration judge's order denying her application for cancellation of removal. Because we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Robledo's challenge to the agency's discretionary determination that the she failed to demonstrate exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her qualifying relatives. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)®; Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003); Montero-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 277 F.3d 1137, 1144 (9th Cir.2002).
Moreover, Robledo has failed to raise a colorable constitutional claim to invoke our jurisdiction over this petition for review. See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845 (9th Cir.2003); Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001).
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.