Case Name: Armando Del Valle FAVELA, Petitioner, 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 604
Docket Number: No. 05-74950
Parties: Armando Del Valle FAVELA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 195
Pages: 604–605

Head Matter:
Armando Del Valle FAVELA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-74950.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Filed July 31, 2006.
Armando Del Valle Favela, Hawaian Garden, CA, pro se.
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, Leslie McKay, Stacy S. Paddack, Kurt B. Larson, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee 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
Armando Del Valle Favela, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("Board") denial of his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We dismiss the petition for review.
The evidence petitioner presented with his motion to reopen concerned the same basic hardship grounds as his application for cancellation of removal. See Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 602-03 (9th Cir.2006). We therefore lack jurisdiction to review the Board's discretionary determination that the evidence would not alter its prior discretionary determination that petitioner failed to establish the requisite hardship. See id. at 600 (holding that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) bars this court from reviewing the denial of a motion to reopen where "the only question presented is whether [the] new evidence altered the prior, underlying discretionary determination that [the petitioner] had not met the hardship standard.") (internal quotations and brackets omitted).
Petitioner's contention that the Board violated due process by speculating about the evidence and making a medical judgment is not supported by the record and does not amount to a colorable constitutional claim. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005) ("[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 may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.