Case Name: Pedro Jiminez PENALOZA; Maria De Jesus Jimenez Penaloza, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-01
Citations: 195 F. App'x 624
Docket Number: No. 05-71346
Parties: Pedro Jiminez PENALOZA; Maria De Jesus Jimenez Penaloza, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 195
Pages: 624–625

Head Matter:
Pedro Jiminez PENALOZA; Maria De Jesus Jimenez Penaloza, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-71346.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Filed Aug. 1, 2006.
Susan E. Hill, Esq., Hill & Piibe, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
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, Jennifer Paisner, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Offiee 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
Pedro Jiminez Penaloza and his wife Maria de Jesus Jimenez Penaloza, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming without opinion an immigration judge's order denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
The petitioners' contention that the agency violated their due process rights by disregarding their evidence of hardship, including a psychological evaluation, is not supported by the record and does not amount to a colorable constitutional claim. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005) ("[tjraditional 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.