Case Name: Ines Bello LOPEZ; Ana Carys Palacios Bello, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-27
Citations: 238 F. App'x 262
Docket Number: No. 05-76062
Parties: Ines Bello LOPEZ; Ana Carys Palacios Bello, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, T.G. NELSON and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 238
Pages: 262–263

Head Matter:
Ines Bello LOPEZ; Ana Carys Palacios Bello, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-76062.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 4, 2007.
Filed June 27, 2007.
Ines Bello Lopez, Riverside, CA, pro se.
Ana Carys Palacios Bello, Riverside, CA, pro se.
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, William C. Erb, Jr., Esq., Stacy S. Paddack, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, T.G. NELSON and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ines Bello Lopez and Ana Carys Palacios Bello seek review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding an immigration judge's order denying their application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary determination that an applicant has failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative, see Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.2003), and petitioners do not raise a colorable due pro cess claim, 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.