Case Name: Marcos Uscanga HERMIDA, Petitioner, 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 725
Docket Number: No. 06-71950
Parties: Marcos Uscanga HERMIDA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GRABER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 230
Pages: 725–725

Head Matter:
Marcos Uscanga HERMIDA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-71950.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007.
Filed April 30, 2007.
Marcos Uscanga Hermida, South Gate, 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, OIL, Kurt B. Larson, Esq., 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
Marcos Uscanga Hermida seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") upholding an immigration judge's order denying his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ's discretionary determination that Uscanga 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).
Uscanga's contention that the BIA failed to evaluate all the hardship equities is not supported by the record and does not amount to a colorable due process 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.