EDUARDO ROMERO-ZEPEDA and ELVIA ROMERO 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
EDUARDO ROMERO-ZEPEDA and
ELVIA ROMERO,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-71221
Agency Nos. A079-544-169
A079-544-170
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 21, 2012**
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Petitioners Eduardo Romero-Zepeda and Elvia Romero, husband and wife
and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of a Board of
Immigration Appeals order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s
FILED
FEB 29 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 08-71221
(IJ) denial of their application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is
governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. 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 their U.S.
citizen children. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d
975, 979 (9th Cir. 2009).
Petitioners’ contention that the IJ failed to properly consider and weigh all
evidence of hardship does not raise a colorable due process claim. Martinez-Rosas
v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --