Case Name: Jose de Jesus Bernal BECERRA; Maria Izaura Lopez Gutierrez, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-30
Citations: 230 F. App'x 744
Docket Number: No. 06-70957
Parties: Jose de Jesus Bernal BECERRA; Maria Izaura Lopez Gutierrez, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GRABER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 230
Pages: 744–744

Head Matter:
Jose de Jesus Bernal BECERRA; Maria Izaura Lopez Gutierrez, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-70957.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007.
Filed April 30, 2007.
Bruce C. Wong, Esq., Duxford Law Group, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioners.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GRABER, 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
Jose de Jesus Bernal Becerra and Maria Izaura Lopez Gutierrez seek review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") upholding an immigration judge's order denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's 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 BIA violated their due process rights by disregarding their evidence of hardship is not supported by the record and does not amount to a colorable constitutional claim. 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 is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.