Case Name: Luis Arnoldo CRUZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-10-15
Citations: 485 F. App'x 267
Docket Number: No. 10-70811
Parties: Luis Arnoldo CRUZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 485
Pages: 267–268

Head Matter:
Luis Arnoldo CRUZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-70811.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 9, 2012.
Filed Oct. 15, 2012.
Robert Bradford Jobe, Esquire, Law Offices Of Robert B. Jobe, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department Of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Ann Carroll Var-non, Esquire, DOJ — U.S. Department Of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: RAWLINSON, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Luis Arnoldo Cruz, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's discretionary determination that Cruz failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003).
To the extent Cruz contends that the agency did not apply the legal standard correctly in making its hardship determination, this contention is not supported by the record and does not amount to a color-able 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 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.