Case Name: Isaac Lara CASTILLO; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-26
Citations: 222 F. App'x 622
Docket Number: No. 06-72040
Parties: Isaac Lara CASTILLO; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 222
Pages: 622–623

Head Matter:
Isaac Lara CASTILLO; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-72040.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 20, 2007.
Filed Feb. 26, 2007.
Isaac Lara Castillo, Margarita Martinez Aquilar, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
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, Jennifer Paisner, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Isaac Lara Castillo and Margarita Martinez Aquilar, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") decision affirming an immigration judge's denial of their application for cancellation of removal. Because we lack jurisdiction, we dismiss.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Lara Castillo and Martinez Aquilar's challenge to the agency's discretionary determination that they failed to demonstrate exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to their qualifying relatives. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir. 2005). Moreover, Lara Castillo and Martinez Aquilar have failed to raise a color-able constitutional or legal claim to invoke our jurisdiction over this petition for review. See Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.