Case Name: Hilaria MORENO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-28
Citations: 261 F. App'x 972
Docket Number: No. 06-70469
Parties: Hilaria MORENO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 261
Pages: 972–972

Head Matter:
Hilaria MORENO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-70469.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 3, 2007 .
Filed Dec. 28, 2007.
Hilaria Moreno, Santa Ana, 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, William C. Erb, Jr., Esq., Shahrzad Baghai, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Hilaria Moreno, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming the immigration judge's denial of petitioner's application for cancellation of removal.
We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ's discretionary determination that petitioner 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). Petitioner's contention that the agency violated her due process right to a full and fair hearing by failing to properly address and evaluate her claim of hardship does not amount to a colorable constitutional claim. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).
We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioner's contention—that she is eligible for adjustment of status based on a 1-130 petition filed by her United States citizen daughter—because it was not raised before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (explaining that this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.