Case Name: Estela ORTIZ-NAVA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-31
Citations: 194 F. App'x 467
Docket Number: No. 05-72303
Parties: Estela ORTIZ-NAVA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 194
Pages: 467–468

Head Matter:
Estela ORTIZ-NAVA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-72303.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Decided July 31, 2006.
Murray D. Hilts, Esq., Law Offices of Murray Hilts, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
District Director, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Kurt B. Larson, Esq., Washington, DC, 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
Estela Ortiz-Nava, 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 her application for cancellation of removal. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ's discretionary determination that OrtizNava failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005). To the extent Ortiz-Nava contends that the IJ misapplied the law to the facts of her case, this contention does not state a colorable due process claim. See id; see also Sanchez-Cruz v. INS, 255 F.3d 775, 779 (9th Cir.2001) (holding that the "misapplication of case law" may not be reviewed).
OrtizKNava's due process challenge to streamlining is foreclosed by Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 851 (9th Cir.2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
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.