Cristobal Acosta-Ariega; Maria Zepeda-Zaragoza v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
AP/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CRISTOBAL ACOSTA-ARIEGA;
MARIA ZEPEDA-ZARAGOZA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-71658
Agency Nos. A095-118-887
A079-653-105
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Cristobal Acosta-Ariega and Maria Zepeda-Zaragoza, husband and wife and
natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s
FILED
JAN 05 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

AP/Research 06-71658 2
decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. 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 a
qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.
2005).
Petitioners’ contention that the agency deprived them of due process by
misapplying the law to the facts of their case does not state a colorable due process
claim. See id. (“[t]raditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due
process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would
invoke our jurisdiction.”); see also Sanchez-Cruz v. INS, 255 F.3d 775, 779 (9th
Cir. 2001) (holding that the “misapplication of case law” may not be reviewed).
Petitioners’ remaining contention is unavailing.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --