
    Bernardo Martinez RAMOS; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-72279.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 20, 2007.
    
    Filed Feb. 23, 2007.
    Celeste S. Castro, Esq., Law Offices of Celeste S. Castro, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioners.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, William C. Minick, Esq., Kelly J. Walls, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
      This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Bernardo Martinez Ramos and Maria De Lourdes Ramos Hernandez, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision denying their application for cancellation of removal based on their failure to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to their two United States citizen children.

Petitioners contend that the BIA violated their due process rights by failing to cumulatively weigh the hardship factors that their United States citizen children would experience upon petitioners removal.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that petitioners failed to establish exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. See MartinezRosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).

Although we retain jurisdiction to consider colorable constitutional claims that petitioners may raise, Ramirez-Perez v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 1001, 1004 (9th Cir.2003), petitioners’ contention that the BIA and IJ deprived them of due process by misapplying the law to the facts of this case by not cumulatively weighing the evidence of hardship is not a colorable due process claim. See Martinez-Rosas, 424 F.3d at 930 (“traditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.”)

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.
     