Case Name: Silverio Mejia SALGUERO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-04
Citations: 381 F. App'x 754
Docket Number: No. 07-74243
Parties: Silverio Mejia SALGUERO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, THOMAS and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 381
Pages: 754–755

Head Matter:
Silverio Mejia SALGUERO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-74243.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 25, 2010.
Filed June 4, 2010.
Seth L. Reszko, Esquire, Reza Athari & Associates, PLLC A Multi-Jurisdictional Firm, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner.
Blair O’Connor, Assistant Director, Claire Workman, Trial U.S., Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS and W. FLETCHER, 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
Silverio Mejia Salguero, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review from the Board of Immigration Appeals' summary affirmance of an immigration judge's denial of his applications for suspension of deportation.
We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ's discretionary determination that petitioner failed to demonstrate the requisite hardship. See Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1151-52 (9th Cir.1997). To the extent Sal-guero raises a due process challenge to the hardship determination, we lack jurisdiction because the claim is not colorable. See Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001) (indicating that an applicant may not create the jurisdiction Congress chose to remove simply by cloaking an abuse of discretion argument in constitutional garb).
We also lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's decision to summarily affirm the immigration judge's decision. See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 845, 855 (9th Cir.2003) (where the issue before the court is nonreviewable, so is the BIA's decision to summarily affirm).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.