Opinion
No. 08-71221 Agency No. A079-544-169 Agency No. A079-544-170
02-29-2012
EDUARDO ROMERO-ZEPEDA and ELVIA ROMERO, Petitioners, v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2012
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
--------
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Petitioners Eduardo Romero-Zepeda and Elvia Romero, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for 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. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 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' contention that the IJ failed to properly consider and weigh all evidence of hardship does not raise a colorable due process claim. Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.