Case Name: Andres Onofre RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-02
Citations: 195 F. App'x 682
Docket Number: No. 05-70459
Parties: Andres Onofre RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 195
Pages: 682–682

Head Matter:
Andres Onofre RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-70459.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Decided Aug. 2, 2006.
Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Andres Onofre Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order affirming without opinion an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ's discretionary determination that Ramirez failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.2003).
Ramirez's contention that the IJ failed to consider all relevant hardship factors is not supported by the record and does not amount to a colorable constitutional claim. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005); Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001) ("a petitioner may not create the jurisdiction that Congress chose to remove simply by cloaking an abuse of discretion argument in constitutional garb.... [T]he claim must have some possible validity.") (Internal quotation omitted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.