Case Name: Rony Eugenio ESQUIVEL-RIVERA; Hercilia Esquivel-Rosales, 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 263
Docket Number: No. 05-77154
Parties: Rony Eugenio ESQUIVEL-RIVERA; Hercilia Esquivel-Rosales, 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: 263–263

Head Matter:
Rony Eugenio ESQUIVEL-RIVERA; Hercilia Esquivel-Rosales, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-77154.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 4, 2007.
Filed June 27, 2007.
Rony Eugenio Esquivel-Rivera, New-hall, CA, pro se.
Justin N. Pfeiffer, Esq., Isais & Pfeiffer, LLP, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioners.
Hercilia Esquivel-Rosales, Newhall, 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, Kristin K. Edison, Esq., DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., M. Jocelyn Wright, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Washington, D.C., 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
Rony Eugenio Esquivel-Rivera and Hercilia Esquivel-Rosales 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 process 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.