Herrera

MEMORANDUM **

Julio Javier Balam Herrera and Rocio Balam, husband and wife, seek review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order upholding an immigration judge’s decision to deny their application for cancellation of removal and the BIA’s order denying of their motion to reopen removal proceedings. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings. See Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001). We dismiss the petition for review for No. 04-72718 and we deny in part and grant in part the petition for review for No. 04-75030.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that Petitioners failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.2003).

Contrary to Petitioners’ contention, the BIA’s interpretation of the hardship standard falls within the broad range authorized by the statute. See Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1001, 1005 (9th Cir.2003).

The evidence Petitioners presented with their motion to reopen concerned the same basic hardship grounds as their application for cancellation of removal. See Fernandez v.…