Gavina Chavez-Villegas 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).
IH/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GAVINA CHAVEZ-VILLEGAS,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-73243
Agency No. A075-744-962
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Gavina Chavez-Villegas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order granting the government’s
appeal from an immigration judge’s decision granting cancellation of removal.
FILED
APR 16 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

IH/Research 07-73243 2
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo
constitutional questions and questions of law, Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324
F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the
petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that
Chavez-Villegas failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. See
Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005).
Chavez-Villegas’s contention that the BIA violated her due process rights by
disregarding her evidence of hardship is not supported by the record and does not
amount to a colorable constitutional claim. See id. (“traditional abuse of discretion
challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable
constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.”).
Contrary to Chavez-Villegas’s contention, the BIA’s application of the
hardship standard falls within the broad range authorized by statute. See Ramirez-
Perez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1001, 1004 (9th Cir. 2003).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --