Case Name: Magdalena Farias ALVAREZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-24
Citations: 295 F. App'x 131
Docket Number: No. 06-73382
Parties: Magdalena Farias ALVAREZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 295
Pages: 131–132

Head Matter:
Magdalena Farias ALVAREZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-73382.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 8, 2008.
Filed Sept. 24, 2008.
Michael Franquinha, Esquire, Law Office of Michael Franquinha, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
CAC-District, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Kurt B. Larson, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Magdalena Farias Alvarez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying her application for special rule battered spouse cancellation of removal. We review de novo due process claims. Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005). We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's determination that Petitioner failed to show extreme hardship. Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir. 2003); Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1152 (9th Cir.1997).
Petitioner's contention that the IJ violated her due process rights by disregarding her evidence of hardship is not supported by the record and therefore does not amount to a colorable constitutional claim. See Martinez-Rosas, 424 F.3d at 930 ("[Traditional 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.