
    Rafael SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-72172.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 18, 2009.
    
    Filed March 26, 2009.
    Rafael Sanchez, pro se.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Kurt B. Larson, Esquire, OIL, Stacy Stif-fel Paddack, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, 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

Rafael Sanchez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals decision dismissing his appeal of the immigration judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal based on his failure to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his United States citizen children. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that petitioner failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir.2009).

We also lack jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s contentions that the immigration judge ignored certain evidence and was not a neutral fact-finder, because petitioner did not exhaust these claims before the Board. Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS, 213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir.2000). Moreover, petitioner’s contentions that the immigration judge failed to properly consider and weigh all evidence of hardship do not raise a colorable due process claim. Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).

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