Cervantes
Cervantes v. Gonzales
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Jorge Gallegos Cervantes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. See Sanchez-Cruz v. INS, 255 F.3d 775, 779 *698 (9th Cir.2001). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that Cervantes failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929 (9th Cir.2005).
Cervantes’s contention that the BIA’s hardship determination violated his due process rights does not state a colorable due process claim. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005) (“[tjraditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.”). Moreover, the IJ’s interpretation of the hardship standard falls…