Case Name: Josue Misael DE LEON, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-31
Citations: 194 F. App'x 443
Docket Number: No. 05-72313; Agency No. A96-154-264
Parties: Josue Misael DE LEON, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 194
Pages: 443–444

Head Matter:
Josue Misael DE LEON, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-72313.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Decided July 31, 2006.
Frank H. Kim, Esq., San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Lisa M. Arnold, 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
Josué Misael De Leon, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") order denying his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
De Leon's contention that the IJ's finding regarding continuous physical presence improperly influenced her finding regarding hardship is not supported by the record and does amount to a colorable due process claim. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).
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.
. Because De Leon's failure to demonstrate the requisite hardship is dispositive, we do not consider whether he established ten years of continuous physical presence. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 889 (9th Cir.2003).