Frank Fox Racho 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 finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
JTK/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANK FOX RACHO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-74197
Agency No. A035-565-746
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Frank Fox Racho, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an
FILED
DEC 07 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JTK/Research 06-74197 2
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of
removal for legal permanent residents. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of cancellation of
removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Racho’s contention that the IJ
improperly weighed the evidence in determining the equities of his case does not
amount to a colorable constitutional claim. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424
F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[T]raditional abuse of discretion challenges recast
as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims
that would invoke our jurisdiction.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --