Case Name: Amelia REYES-JIMENEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-29
Citations: 469 F. App'x 626
Docket Number: No. 09-74083
Parties: Amelia REYES-JIMENEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 469
Pages: 626–627

Head Matter:
Amelia REYES-JIMENEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-74083.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 21, 2012.
Filed Feb. 29, 2012.
Lynn Marcus, Esquire, Nina Rabin, University of Arizona, College of Law Immigration Law Clinic, Tucson, AZ, Kristin Linsley Myles, Esquire, Gabriel P. Sanchez, Esquire, Munger Tolies & Olson, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Dana Michelle Camilleri, OIL, Drew Brinkman, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Petitioner Amelia Reyes-Jimenez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's denial of her application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's discretionary determination that Reyes-Jimenez failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her U.S. citizen children. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir.2009).
Reyes-Jimenez's contention that the agency failed to properly consider and weigh all evidence of hardship under the proper legal standard does not raise a colorable legal or due process claim. Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.