
    Silvia Chavez De VELASQUEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-73113.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 20, 2011.
    
    Filed May 10, 2011.
    Saad Ahmad, Fremont, CA, for Petitioners.
    Gregory Michael Kelch, Oil, Carol Federighi, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Yamileth G. Handuber, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: RYMER, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Silvia Chavez De Velasquez, Gregorio Velasquez-Garcia and them two children, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order 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. Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir.2000). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Petitioners’ contention that the IJ violated due process by taking additional testimony regarding hardship following the BIA’s June 19, 2008, remand order is not persuasive because the first IJ did not adjudicate any aspect of the petitioners’ cancellation of removal claim beyond the question of moral character, and the remand did not limit the second IJ in what he could consider on remand. See Fernandes v. Holder, 619 F.3d 1069, 1074 (9th Cir.2010) (“[T]he IJ’s jurisdiction on remand from the BIA is limited only when the BIA expressly retains jurisdiction and qualifies or limits the scope of the remand to a specific purpose.”).

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’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).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
     