Case Name: Federico Lopez OREGON, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-16
Citations: 225 F. App'x 558
Docket Number: No. 05-72381
Parties: Federico Lopez OREGON, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 225
Pages: 558–559

Head Matter:
Federico Lopez OREGON, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-72381.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2007.
Filed March 16, 2007.
Ashwani K. Bhakhri, Esq., Law Offices of Ashwani K. Bhakhri, Burlingame, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Stacy S. Paddack, Kurt B. Larson, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P.34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Federico Lopez Oregon seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding an immigration judge's ("IJ") order denying his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary determination that an applicant has failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative, see Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.2003), and Oregon does not raise a colorable due process claim regarding the IJ's hardship determination, 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.").
We do not consider Oregon's contention regarding the IJ's finding of possible tax fraud, because his failure to establish hardship is dispositive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.