
    Rodolfo CALDERA-SAUCEDO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-73780.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 1, 2011.
    
    Filed Aug. 17, 2011.
    Rodolfo Caldera-Saucedo, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Paul Cygnarowicz, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, THOMAS, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rodolfo Caldera-Saucedo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, including claims of due process violations. Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir.2003). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Caldera-Saucedo did not demonstrate “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005). Contrary to Caldera-Saucedo’s contention, the agency’s interpretation of the hardship standard falls within the broad range authorized by the statute. See Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1001, 1004-06 (9th Cir.2003).

Caldera-Saucedo’s contention that the BIA failed to consider all the evidence is not supported by the record.

Caldera-Saucedo’s equal protection contention regarding the rights of his United States citizen children is not colorable. See Urbano de Malaluan v. INS, 577 F.2d 589, 594 (9th Cir.1978).

Because the BIA reviewed de novo, we do not address Caldera-Saucedo’s challenges to the IJ’s decision. See Ghaly v. INS, 58 F.3d 1425, 1430 (9th Cir.1995) (Where the BIA conducts a de novo review, “[a]ny error committed by the IJ will be rendered harmless by the Board’s application of the correct legal standard.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     