Case Name: Felix RAMIREZ-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-12-02
Citations: 302 F. App'x 617
Docket Number: No. 07-73849
Parties: Felix RAMIREZ-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 302
Pages: 617–618

Head Matter:
Felix RAMIREZ-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-73849.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 24, 2008.
Filed Dec. 2, 2008.
Jan Joseph Bejar, Esquire, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
Jeffery R. Leist, Trial, Stacy S. Paddack, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Jeffrey J. Leist, Esquire, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, CAS-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Felix Ramirez-Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") upholding an Immigration Judge's order denying his application for cancellation of removal.
We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary determination that Ramirez-Rodriguez failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relatives. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005). Ramirez-Rodriguez's contention that the IJ and BIA misapplied the law to the facts of his case and failed to adequately consider and weigh all the evidence of hardship does not raise a colorable due process claim. Id. ("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.