Case Name: Jesus Agredano REYNOSO, aka Jesus Reynoso-Agredano, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-30
Citations: 329 F. App'x 786
Docket Number: No. 07-71601
Parties: Jesus Agredano REYNOSO, aka Jesus Reynoso-Agredano, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 329
Pages: 786–786

Head Matter:
Jesus Agredano REYNOSO, aka Jesus Reynoso-Agredano, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-71601.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 29, 2009.
Filed July 30, 2009.
Shant Jaburian, Law Office of Shant Jaburian, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-District, 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, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jesus Agredano Reynoso, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his application for cancellation of removal for legal permanent residents. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)©. Rey-noso's contention that the IJ improperly weighed the evidence in determining the equities of his case 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 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.