Case Name: Severo Tlatenchi BLANCO; Mayra Aldaco Santillano, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-20
Citations: 227 F. App'x 697
Docket Number: No. 06-73002
Parties: Severo Tlatenchi BLANCO; Mayra Aldaco Santillano, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 227
Pages: 697–697

Head Matter:
Severo Tlatenchi BLANCO; Mayra Aldaco Santillano, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-73002.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007.
Filed April 20, 2007.
Susan E. Hill, Esq., Hill & Piibe, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Michele Y.F. Sarko, Esq., Carol Federighi, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON 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
Severo Tlatenchi Blanco and Mayra Aldaco Santillano, husband and wife, seek review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding an immigration judge's order denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary determination that the petitioners have failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003).
Petitioners' contention that the hardship standard set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D) is unconstitutionally vague does not state a colorable due process 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 is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.