Case Name: Jose Guadalupe GOMEZ, 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 727
Docket Number: No. 06-71756
Parties: Jose Guadalupe GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GRABER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 230
Pages: 727–728

Head Matter:
Jose Guadalupe GOMEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-71756.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007 .
Filed April 30, 2007.
Frank P. Sprouls, Esq., Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Matt Crapo, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GRABER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Guadalupe Gomez seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding an immigration judge's 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, 892 (9th Cir.2003), and Guadalupe does not raise a colorable due process 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 do not consider Guadalupe's contentions regarding physical presence and moral character because Guadalupe's failure to establish hardship is dispositive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.