VALDIVIESO CALDERON v. HOLDER, 381 Fed.Appx. 747 (9th Cir. 2010)

Jorge Martin VALDIVIESO CALDERON; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,[*] Respondent.

No. 08-71684.United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.Submitted May 25, 2010.[**]
Filed June 4, 2010.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

[*] Eric H. Holder, Jr., is substituted for his predecessor, Michael B, Mukasey, as Attorney General of the United States. Fed.R.App.P. 43(c)(2).

[**] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Barbara J. Darnell-Allen, Esquire, Counsel, Law Offices of Barbara J. Darnell, Los Angeles, CA, Howard Robert Davis, Law Offices of Howard R. Davis, Santa Monica, CA, for Petitioners.

CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Paul F. Stone, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency Nos. A073-972-620, A073-972-777.

Before: CANBY, THOMAS and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM[***]

[***] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided bv 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Jorge Martin Valdivieso Calderon and Maria Luisa Esquivel Reyes, natives and

Page 748

citizens of Mexico, seek review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of their application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that petitioners failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to their U.S. citizen children. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir. 2009).

Petitioners’ contentions, that the Board failed to properly consider and weigh all evidence of hardship or consider the IJ’s alleged failure to properly evaluate the evidence because the Board did not specifically address petitioners’ contentions in its decision, do not raise a colorable due process claim Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

jdjungle