Case Name: Suset Danitza MARTINEZ, a.k.a. Suset Danitza Hernandez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-12-21
Citations: 501 F. App'x 650
Docket Number: No. 10-73812
Parties: Suset Danitza MARTINEZ, a.k.a. Suset Danitza Hernandez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 501
Pages: 650–650

Head Matter:
Suset Danitza MARTINEZ, a.k.a. Suset Danitza Hernandez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-73812.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2012.
Filed Dec. 21, 2012.
Jose A. Bracamonte, Law Offices of Jose A. Bracamonte, P.C., Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
Oil, Don George Scroggin, Esquire, Trial, 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: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, 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
Suset Danitza Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's removal order. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's discretionary determination that Martinez did not merit special rule cancellation of removal for battered spouses. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i).
Martinez's contention that the agency violated due process by unilaterally vacating her last scheduled hearing and improperly relying on her Form 1-213, Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien, are not supported by the record and do not amount to colorable constitutional claims that would restore our jurisdiction. See 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.