
    Bartolo VALERIO-ESTRADA; Teresa Diaz Benitez; Guillermo Valerio Diaz, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71043.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
    
    Filed Oct. 25, 2010.
    Estela S. Richeda, Law Office of Estela S. Richeda, Pasadena, CA, for Petitioners.
    OIL, Kate Deboer Balaban, Esquire, Trial, Carl Henry McIntyre, Jr., Assistant Director, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of The Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Bartolo Valerio-Estrada, Teresa Diaz Benitez, and Guillermo Valerio Diaz, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, including whether a state conviction is a removable offense. Banuelos-Ayon v. Holder, 611 F.3d 1080, 1082 (9th Cir.2010). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency correctly determined that Valerio-Estrada’s criminal conviction for corporal injury to his spouse renders him ineligible for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(b)(l)(C), 1227(a)(2)(E); Banuelos-Ayon, 611 F.3d at 1083 (a conviction under California Penal Code § 273.5(a) constitutes a categorical crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 16(a)).

The agency also correctly determined Diaz-Benitez is ineligible for cancellation of removal because she currently lacks any qualifying relatives. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D).

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that Teresa failed to show extreme hardship to a qualifying relative. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir.2009). In addition, we lack jurisdiction over petitioners’ contentions that the BIA failed to consider the evidence or the cumulative impact of their hardship evidence because they are not supported by the record and do not amount to a colorable constitutional claims. See Mendez-Castro, 552 F.3d at 980 (9th Cir.2009).

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