Mendoza

MEMORANDUM **

We have reviewed the record and petitioners’ filings in this court. We conclude that petitioners have failed to raise a colorable constitutional or legal claim to invoke our jurisdiction over this petition for review under the REAL ID Act of 2005, 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(D). See Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, 410 F.3d 585, 587 (9th Cir.2005), as adopted by, Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, 466 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir.2006) (en banc). Accordingly, we dismiss this petition for review because we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that petitioners did not demonstrate their removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(B)®; MartinezRosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir.2005); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003).

The fact that petitioners dispute the Immigration Judge’s findings of fact makes no difference. “[W]e have held that the ‘exceptional and extremely unusual hardship’ standard is subjective, and thus that it does implicate the ‘value judgment of the person or entity examining the issue,’ Romero-Torres, 327 F.3d at 890-91 , [and…