Case Name: Luis Viramontes BANUELOS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-24
Citations: 229 F. App'x 513
Docket Number: No. 05-70527
Parties: Luis Viramontes BANUELOS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 229
Pages: 513–514

Head Matter:
Luis Viramontes BANUELOS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-70527.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007 .
Filed April 24, 2007.
Brian D. Lerner, Esq., Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner, Long Beach, CA, for Petitioner.
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, Virginia Lum Fax, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit. Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Luis Viramontes Banuelos, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order affirming without opinion an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his application for cancellation of removal and voluntary departure. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ's denial of voluntary departure, see Gomez-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 882, 883-84 (9th Cir.2005), and Viramontes Banuelos does not raise a colorable constitutional 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.").
We do not consider the agency's denial of cancellation of removal because the brief filed on December 6, 2005 fails to challenge that determination.
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.