Case Name: Erick Danilo SOSA-SALGERO, aka Daniel Sosa, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-05-17
Citations: 472 F. App'x 855
Docket Number: No. 11-70807
Parties: Erick Danilo SOSA-SALGERO, aka Daniel Sosa, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 472
Pages: 855–855

Head Matter:
Erick Danilo SOSA-SALGERO, aka Daniel Sosa, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 11-70807.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 15, 2012.
Filed May 17, 2012.
James B. Rudolph, Esquire, Rudolph, Baker & Associates, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
Kate Deboer Balaban, Esquire, 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: CANBY, GRABER and M. SMITH, 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
Erick Danilo Sosa-Salgero, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's discretionary determination that Sosa-Salgero failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his United States citizen child. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir.2009).
Sosa-Salgero's contention, that the Board failed to properly consider and weigh all evidence of hardship, does not raise a colorable due process claim. Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.