Case Name: Lourdes Alatorre ARRANGA; et al., Petitioners, 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: 195 F. App'x 608
Docket Number: No. 05-74657
Parties: Lourdes Alatorre ARRANGA; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 195
Pages: 608–609

Head Matter:
Lourdes Alatorre ARRANGA; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-74657.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Filed July 31, 2006.
Lourdes Alatorre Arranga, Anaheim, CA, pro se.
Jose Luis Ibarra Santos, Anaheim, CA, pro se.
Luis Angel Ibarra Alatorre, Anaheim, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Douglas E. Ginsburg, Esq., John D. Williams, Esq., 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
Lourdes Alatorre Arranga, Jose Ibarra Santos, and Luis Angel Ibarra Alatorre, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("Board") dismissal of their appeal of an immigration judge's denial of their applications for cancellation of removal. We lack jurisdiction to review the Board's discretionary determination that petitioners failed to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship, see Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.2003), as well as their noncolorable claim that the agency failed to adequately consider the factors in their case, 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.").
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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.