
    Humberto GOMEZ ISLAS; Marisela Guadalupe Gomez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-70223.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 3, 2010.
    Shawn Sedaghat, Esquire, Law Offices of Shawn Sedaghat, Hollywood, CA, for Petitioners.
    Regina Byrd, Esquire, OIL, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Le-fevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Humberto Gomez Islas and Marisela Guadalupe Gomez, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing their appeal from 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 questions of law, including due process violations. Vasquez-Zavala v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 1105, 1107 (9th Cir.2003). We dismiss in part and deny the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary determination that petitioners failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).

Petitioners’ contention that the IJ violated their due process rights by disregarding or misapplying their evidence of hardship is not supported by the record and does not amount to a colorable constitutional claim. See id. (“[Traditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.”).

Contrary to petitioners’ contention, the IJ’s interpretation of the hardship standard falls within the broad range authorized by the statute. See Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1001, 1004-1006 (9th Cir.2003).

Petitioners cannot prevail on their due process challenges, because they have not shown prejudice from the IJ’s actions. See Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 926 (9th Cir.2007).

This court cannot consider new evidence presented on appeal that was not presented to the agency. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A).

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.
     