Rodriguez

MEMORANDUM ***

Celia Rodriguez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affir-mance of an immigration judge’s decision denying her application for cancellation of removal for failure to establish that her United States citizen children would suffer exceptional and extremely unusual hardship upon her removal, as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l). She also petitions for review of the Board’s denial of her motion to reopen.

In her opening brief, Rodriguez contends that she met the hardship requirement. 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(B)© deprives us of jurisdiction to review the discretionary hardship determination. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir.2005).

In her supplemental opening brief, Rodriguez contends that the immigration judge violated her right to due process because he incorrectly interpreted the hardship standard and disregarded the evidence, leading to an unconscionable result. We have jurisdiction to consider colorable due process claims. See id. at 930 . A difference of opinion as to the weight a piece of evidence should be given is not, however, a colorable due process claim, and we do…