
    Cirilo JAIMES-MEDINA; Beatriz Diaz-Gutierrez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    Nos. 07-73349.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Jan. 11, 2009.
    
    Filed Jan. 22, 2010.
    Nathan Menta Zaslow, Law Office of Nathan Zaslow, San Jose, CA, for Petitioners.
    Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Christopher McGreal, Craig Alan Newell, Jr., Esquire, Trial, OIL, Emily Anne Radford, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Cirilo Jaimes-Medina and his wife, Beatriz Diaz-Gutierrez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) denying their appeal of an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of due process violations in immigration proceedings. Ibarro-Flores v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 614, 620 (9th Cir.2006). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

Petitioners’ contention that the IJ violated due process by basing part of his hardship determination on the temporary nature of their qualifying relative’s need for counseling is not supported by the record and does not amount to a colorable constitutional 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.”). We therefore lack jurisdiction over this claim.

Contrary to petitioners’ contention, the BIA’s decision adequately addressed the due process claim, thus making remand under Montes-Lopez v. Gonzales, 486 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir.2007) unnecessary; see also Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 603-04 (9th Cir.2006).

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.
     