Case Name: Ciarra Maria JIMENEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-15
Citations: 234 F. App'x 665
Docket Number: No. 06-70805
Parties: Ciarra Maria JIMENEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 234
Pages: 665–666

Head Matter:
Ciarra Maria JIMENEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-70805.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 5, 2007.
Filed June 15, 2007.
Juliana L. Butler, Julie R. Sparks, Esq., Reeves & Associates, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioner.
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, Thankful T. Vanderstar, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ciarra Maria Jimenez seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Ap peals upholding an immigration judge's order denying Jimenez's application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary determination that an applicant has failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative, see Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.2003), and Jimenez does not raise a colorable due process claim, see Padilla-Padilla v. Gonzales, 463 F.3d 972, 978-79 (9th Cir.2006); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.