Jose Guadalupe Huerte Duran; Casimira Casa Pena 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).
LA/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE GUADALUPE HUERTE DURAN;
CASIMIRA CASA PENA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 05-73324
Agency Nos. A075-621-937
A075-621-938
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.
Jose Guadalupe Huerte Duran and Casimira Casa Pena, natives and citizens
of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
denying their motion to remand and dismissing their appeal from an immigration
FILED
DEC 22 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

LA/Research 05-73324 2
judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. Our
jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition for review.
To the extent petitioners challenge the IJ’s underlying decision, we lack
jurisdiction to review the 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, 892 (9th Cir. 2003). We also lack
jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that the evidence of
hardship petitioners submitted with their motion to remand was insufficient to
establish a prima facie case for cancellation of removal. See Fernandez v.
Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 601, 603 (9th Cir. 2006).
Petitioners’ contention that the BIA failed to adequately review the evidence
are neither supported nor colorable. 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 --