Case Name: Ramon Godoy VARGAS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-31
Citations: 194 F. App'x 467
Docket Number: No. 05-75965
Parties: Ramon Godoy VARGAS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 194
Pages: 467–468

Head Matter:
Ramon Godoy VARGAS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-75965.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Decided July 31, 2006.
Ramon Godoy Vargas, Paso Robles, 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, OIL, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office 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
Ramon Godoy Vargas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' summary affirmance without opinion of an immigration judge's denial of his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's discretionary hardship determination. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887 (9th Cir.2003). Although we retain jurisdiction to review due process challenges to that determination, petitioner's contention that the IJ failed to consider all the relevant factors in his case is not supported by the record and fails to state a colorable due process claim. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005); Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir.2000) (rejecting contention that the agency did not consider entire record where there was no basis for rebutting presumption that the agency reviewed all the relevant evidence).
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.