Case Name: Jorge OLAYO-AGUILAR, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General; et al., Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-28
Citations: 262 F. App'x 72
Docket Number: No. 06-75222
Parties: Jorge OLAYO-AGUILAR, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General; et al., Respondents.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 262
Pages: 72–73

Head Matter:
Jorge OLAYO-AGUILAR, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General; et al., Respondents.
No. 06-75222.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 20, 2007 .
Filed Dec. 28, 2007.
Bethania Maria, Esq., Law Offices of Bethania Maria, Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Ari Nazarov, Esq., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Michael B. Mukasey is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jorge Olayo-Aguilar seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") 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 Olayo-Aguilar 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).
Olayo-Aguilar's contention that the agency deprived him of due process by misapplying the law to the facts of his case does not state a colorable due process claim. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005) ("[Tjraditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction."); see also Sanchez-Cruz v. INS, 255 F.3d 775, 779 (9th Cir.2001) (holding that the "misapplication of case law" may not be reviewed).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.