Humberto Gomez Islas; Marisela Guadalupe Gomez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
HUMBERTO GOMEZ ISLAS;
MARISELA GUADALUPE GOMEZ,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-70223
Agency Nos. A097-347-166
A097-347-167
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Humberto Gomez Islas and Marisela Guadalupe Gomez, natives and citizens
of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their
application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
FILED
JUN 03 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-70223 2
§ 1252. We review de novo questions of law, including due process violations.
Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir. 2003). We dismiss in
part and deny the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary determination that
petitioners failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a
qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.
2005).
Petitioners’ contention that the IJ violated their due process rights by
disregarding or misapplying their evidence of hardship is not supported by the
record and does not amount to a colorable constitutional claim. See id.
(“[T]raditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process
violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would invoke our
jurisdiction.”).
Contrary to petitioners’ contention, the IJ’s interpretation of the hardship
standard falls within the broad range authorized by the statute. See Ramirez-Perez
v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1001, 1004-1006 (9th Cir. 2003).
Petitioners cannot prevail on their due process challenges, because they
have not shown prejudice from the IJ’s actions. See Vargas-Hernandez v.
Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 926 (9th Cir. 2007).

-- 2 of 3 --

08-70223 3
This court cannot consider new evidence presented on appeal that was not
presented to the agency. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --