Case Name: Jaime MOZO-GENEL, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-11-26
Citations: 256 F. App'x 151
Docket Number: No. 06-74595
Parties: Jaime MOZO-GENEL, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: TROTT, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 256
Pages: 151–151

Head Matter:
Jaime MOZO-GENEL, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-74595.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 13, 2007 .
Filed Nov. 26, 2007.
Steven A. Guilin, Escondido, CA, for Petitioner.
Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General, CAS-District Counsel, 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, David M. McConnell, Kurt B. Larson, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div. Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: TROTT, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jaime Mozo-Genel, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals decision affirming the immigration judge's denial of petitioner's application for cancellation of removal.
We lack jurisdiction to consider petitioner's challenge to the IJ's extreme hardship determination because it is a nonreviewable discretionary determination. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.2003) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)). Petitioner's contention that the agency violated his due process rights by failing to properly evaluate the evidence of hardship does not amount to a colorable constitutional 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 is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.