Case Name: Arcelia VIZCAINO; Enrique Vizcaino, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-01
Citations: 195 F. App'x 652
Docket Number: No. 04-76522
Parties: Arcelia VIZCAINO; Enrique Vizcaino, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 195
Pages: 652–653

Head Matter:
Arcelia VIZCAINO; Enrique Vizcaino, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-76522.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Decided Aug. 1, 2006.
Robert L. Lewis, Esq., Law Office of Robert L. Lewis, Oakland, CA, for Petitioners.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Linda S. Wendtland, Esq., Ann Carroll Varnon, Esq., Saul E. Greenstein, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Arcelia and Enrique Vizcaino, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order affirming without opinion an immigration judge's decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
Petitioners' contention that the agency violated their due process rights by disregarding hardship evidence 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 color-able constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction."). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider the claim. See id.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.