Case Name: Maria Del Rosario GOMEZ-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-30
Citations: 230 F. App'x 769
Docket Number: No. 06-71069
Parties: Maria Del Rosario GOMEZ-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 230
Pages: 769–769

Head Matter:
Maria Del Rosario GOMEZ-RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-71069.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007 .
Filed April 30, 2007.
Maria Del Rosario Gomez-Rodriguez, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
District Director, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Stephen J. Flynn, Esq., Julie M. Iversen, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Maria del Rosario Gomez-Rodriguez petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order affirming the Immigration Judge's decision denying her application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
Gomez-Rodriguez's contention that the agency violated her due process rights by disregarding her evidence of hardship is not supported by the record and does not amount to a colorable constitutional claim. 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 deny Gomez-Rodriguez's second motion for an extension of time to file an optional reply brief.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.