
    Jorge Martin VALDIVIESO CALDERON; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-71684.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 4, 2010.
    Barbara J. Darnell-Alien, Esquire, Counsel, Law Offices of Barbara J. Darnell, Los Angeles, CA, Howard Robert Davis, Law Offices of Howard R. Davis, Santa Monica, CA, for Petitioners.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Paul F. Stone, Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Eric H. Holder, Jr., is substituted for his predecessor, Michael B. Mukasey, as Attorney General of the United States. Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument.
      
        See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jorge Martin Valdivieso Calderon and Maria Luisa Esquivel Reyes, natives and citizens of Mexico, seek review of a Board of Immigration Appeals order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of their application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss 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 their U.S. citizen children. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir.2009).

Petitioners’ contentions, that the Board failed to properly consider and weigh all evidence of hardship or consider the IJ’s alleged failure to properly evaluate the evidence because the Board did not specifically address petitioners’ contentions in its decision, 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.
     