Case Name: Cesar Juarez SANCHEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-31
Citations: 195 F. App'x 599
Docket Number: No. 05-72405
Parties: Cesar Juarez SANCHEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 195
Pages: 599–599

Head Matter:
Cesar Juarez SANCHEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-72405.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Filed July 31, 2006.
Alexander N. Lopez, Esq., Law Office of Alexander N. Lopez, Glendale, CA, for Petitioners.
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, Douglas E. Ginsburg, Esq., John D. Williams, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Husband and wife Cesar Juarez Sanchez and Maria Guadalupe Juarez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction.
We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ's discretionary determination that petitioners failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005). Their contention that the IJ violated their due process rights by failing to consider all their evidence is not supported by the record and does not amount to a colorable constitutional claim. See id. ("[tjraditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.").
We lack jurisdiction to review petitioners' contention that the IJ was hostile or otherwise exhibited bias during their hearing because petitioners failed to raise this issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (noting that due process challenges that are "procedural in nature" must be exhausted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW 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.