Luis Torres Falfan; Angelica Maria Medina Bahena 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LUIS TORRES FALFAN; ANGELICA
MARIA MEDINA BAHENA,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-70913
Agency Nos. A095-449-318
A095-449-319
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Luis Torres Falfan and Angelica Maria Medina Bahena, husband and wife
and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration
Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying their motion to remand and dismissing their
FILED
NOV 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

07-70913 2
appeal of an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for
cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's denial of cancellation of removal
on hardship grounds. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.
2005).
Petitioners’ contentions that the BIA violated their due process rights by
misapplying the law to the facts of their case and disregarding their evidence of
hardship are not supported by the record and do not amount to colorable
constitutional claims. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir.
2009).
Petitioners’ motion to augment the record is denied. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252(b)(4)(A) (“[T]he court of appeals shall decide the petition only on the
administrative record on which the order of removal is based.”).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --