
    Ofelia Arias ESPINOZA; Tania Fernanda Mendez Arias, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-72766.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 18, 2009.
    
    Filed March 25, 2009.
    Tania Fernanda Mendez Arias, Los An-geles, CA, for Petitioners.
    Oil, Stacy Stiffel Paddack, Kurt B. Larson, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los An-geles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    
      Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ofelia Arias Espinoza and Tania Fer-nanda Mendez Arias, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations. Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005). We dismiss in part and deny in part 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 a qualifying relative. See id.

Petitioners’ contention that the agency violated due process by failing to adequately consider their evidence of hardship does not amount to a colorable constitutional claim. See id. (“[TJraditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.”).

Petitioners’ contention that the BIA violated due process by failing to address or analyze their case is unpersuasive.

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.
     