Case Name: Sherin Sami SHAFIK, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-07
Citations: 285 F. App'x 369
Docket Number: No. 06-75111
Parties: Sherin Sami SHAFIK, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 285
Pages: 369–369

Head Matter:
Sherin Sami SHAFIK, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-75111.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 18, 2008.
Filed July 7, 2008.
James L. Rosenberg, Law Offices of James L. Rosenberg, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Kurt B. Larson, OIL, Stacy S. Paddack, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Sherin Sami Shafik, a native and citizen of Egypt, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's order denying his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's discretionary determination that Shafik failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative, see Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929 (9th Cir.2005), and Shafik does not raise a colorable due process claim, see id. 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.