Case Name: Victor APREZA-REYES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-04
Citations: 381 F. App'x 745
Docket Number: No. 08-73661
Parties: Victor APREZA-REYES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, THOMAS and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 381
Pages: 745–745

Head Matter:
Victor APREZA-REYES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-73661.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 25, 2010.
Filed June 4, 2010.
Sharon A. Healey, Law Office of Sharon A. Healey, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Kathryn Deangelis, OIL, Stacy Stiffel Paddack, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS and W. FLETCHER, 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
Victor Apreza-Reyes, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's (IJ) denial of his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's discretionary determination that Apre-za-Reyes failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his U.S. citizen child. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir.2009).
Apreza-Reyes's contentions, that the IJ failed to properly consider and weigh all evidence of hardship and that the evidence does not support the IJ's finding of no hardship to the U.S. citizen daughter, do not raise a colorable due process claim. Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.