Case Name: Luis Torres FALFAN; Angelica Maria Medina Bahena, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-11-02
Citations: 402 F. App'x 309
Docket Number: No. 07-70913
Parties: Luis Torres FALFAN; Angelica Maria Medina Bahena, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 402
Pages: 309–310

Head Matter:
Luis Torres FALFAN; Angelica Maria Medina Bahena, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-70913.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
Filed Nov. 2, 2010.
James G. Roche, Esquire, Roche Law-firm, LLC, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioners.
Aram A. Gavoor, Trial, Patricia Ann Smith, Senior Litigation Counsel, 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: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, 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
Luis Torres Falfan and Angelica Maria Medina Bahena, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to remand and dismissing their appeal of an immigration judge's decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's denial of cancellation of removal on hardship grounds. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).
Petitioners' contentions that the BIA violated their due process rights by misapplying the law to the facts of their case and disregarding their evidence of hardship are not supported by the record and do not amount to colorable constitutional claims. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir.2009).
Petitioners' motion to augment the record is denied. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A) ("[T]he court of appeals shall decide the petition only on the administrative record on which the order of removal is based.").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.