Case Name: Jose Luis VIAN-ROMERO; Alicia Vasquez Vian, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-01
Citations: 195 F. App'x 651
Docket Number: No. 04-76584
Parties: Jose Luis VIAN-ROMERO; Alicia Vasquez Vian, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 195
Pages: 651–652

Head Matter:
Jose Luis VIAN-ROMERO; Alicia Vasquez Vian, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-76584.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Decided Aug. 1, 2006.
Sharon M. Dulberg, Esq., McVey Mullery & Dulberg, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Stacy S. Paddack, 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
Jose Luis Vian-Romero and Alicia Vasquez Vian, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order adopting and affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's discretionary determination that petitioners failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.2003). Petitioners failed to raise questions of law or colorable constitutional claims over which we could exercise jurisdiction. 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.