Case Name: Delia Dolores Aguirre OCHOA; Juan Jose Aguirre Ochoa; Amalia Marcela Aguirre Ochoa, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-20
Citations: 228 F. App'x 763
Docket Number: No. 05-75176
Parties: Delia Dolores Aguirre OCHOA; Juan Jose Aguirre Ochoa; Amalia Marcela Aguirre Ochoa, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 228
Pages: 763–764

Head Matter:
Delia Dolores Aguirre OCHOA; Juan Jose Aguirre Ochoa; Amalia Marcela Aguirre Ochoa, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-75176.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007 .
Filed April 20, 2007.
Delia Dolores Aguirre Ochoa, San Leandro, 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, Kurt B. Larson, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Delia Dolores Aguirre Ochoa and her two children seek review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding an immigration judge's order denying their application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary determination that petitioners failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003).
Petitioners' contention that the agency deprived their due process by misapplying the law to the facts of their case does not state a colorable due process claim. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005) ("[T]raditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute color-able 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.