Case Name: Adrian PICHARDO-CRUZ; Olivia Urbina-Leon, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-28
Citations: 194 F. App'x 435
Docket Number: No. 05-71363
Parties: Adrian PICHARDO-CRUZ; Olivia Urbina-Leon, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 194
Pages: 435–436

Head Matter:
Adrian PICHARDO-CRUZ; Olivia Urbina-Leon, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-71363.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Decided July 28, 2006.
Adrian Pichardo-Cruz, San Jose, CA, pro se.
Olivia Urbina-Leon, San Jose, CA, pro se.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Nancy E. Friedman, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., 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
Adrian Pichardo-Cruz and Olivia Urbina-Leon, married natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dis missing their appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's discretionary determination that the petitioners failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir.2005). To the extent the petitioners contend they were denied due process because the agency improperly weighed and disregarded evidence, the contention is not supported by the record and does not amount to a colorable constitutional claim. See id. at 930 ("[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 may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.