Case Name: David Ledezma MORALES, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-27
Citations: 272 F. App'x 561
Docket Number: No. 07-70911
Parties: David Ledezma MORALES, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 272
Pages: 561–562

Head Matter:
David Ledezma MORALES, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-70911.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2008.
Filed March 27, 2008.
David Ledezma Morales, San Bernadino, CA, pro se.
District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, T.G. NELSON, 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
David Ledezma Morales, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for re view of the Board of Immigration Appeals decision summarily 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 conclusory allegation that his deportation proceedings constituted a due process violation does not constitute 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.