Case Name: Narcisco Barrera MORALES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-24
Citations: 439 F. App'x 658
Docket Number: No. 07-74865
Parties: Narcisco Barrera MORALES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 439
Pages: 658–658

Head Matter:
Narcisco Barrera MORALES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-74865.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2011.
Filed June 24, 2011.
Narcisco Barrera Morales, Huntington Beach, CA, pro se.
Mary Jane Candaux, Assistant Director, Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Aimee J. Frederickson, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN and FISHER, 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
Narcisco Barrera Morales, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for 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. 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 Morales failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his U.S. citizen children. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir.2009).
Morales's contention that the IJ did not properly consider and weigh all evidence of hardship does 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.