
    Martha GREGORIO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-72858.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 20, 2007.
    
    Filed Dec. 28, 2007.
    Julia L. Osborne, Esq., Law Offices of Julia L. Osborne, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner.
    NVL-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Las Vegas, NV, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, James A. Hunolt, Esq., Stacy S. Paddack, M. Jocelyn Wright, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Michael B. Mukasey is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Martha Gregorio seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) upholding an immigration judge’s order denying her application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that Gregorio failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003).

Gregorio’s contention that the agency deprived her of due process by misapplying the law to the facts of her case does not state a colorable due process claim. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005) (“[Tjraditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.”); see also Sanchez-Cruz v. INS, 255 F.3d 775, 779 (9th Cir.2001) (holding that the “misapplication of case law” may not be reviewed).

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