Case Name: Jose Manuel VARGAS; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-19
Citations: 388 F. App'x 671
Docket Number: No. 08-71414
Parties: Jose Manuel VARGAS; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 388
Pages: 671–672

Head Matter:
Jose Manuel VARGAS; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-71414.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 29, 2010.
Filed July 19, 2010.
Jose Manuel Vargas, Fontana, CA, pro se.
Stacy Stiffel Paddack, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, 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
Jose Manuel Vargas and his family, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their applications for cancellation of removal and denying their motion to remand. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's discretionary determination that petitioners failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005). Petitioners' contentions that the agency applied an incorrect hardship standard and failed to consider relevant hardship factors are not supported by the record and do not amount to colorable claims over which we have jm-isdiction. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir.2009).
In their opening brief, petitioners fail to address, and therefore have waived any challenge to, the BIA's denial of their motion to remand. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED, in part; DENIED, in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.