Case Name: Javier LAVIN-DELGADO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-28
Citations: 360 F. App'x 793
Docket Number: No. 06-73498
Parties: Javier LAVIN-DELGADO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 360
Pages: 793–794

Head Matter:
Javier LAVIN-DELGADO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-73498.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
Filed Dec. 28, 2009.
Edgardo Quintanilla, Quintanilla Law Firm, Inc., Sherman Oaks, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Scott Rempell, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Javier Lavin-Delgado, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's order denying his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's discretionary good moral character determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); see also Lopez-Castellanos v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 848, 854 (9th Cir.2006) (no jurisdiction to review discretionary good moral character determinations of agency).
Lavin-Delgado's due process contention is not colorable, so it does not invoke our jurisdiction. 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 is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.