
    Filogonio Garcia GUZMAN, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-71097.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 8, 2008.
    
    Filed Sept. 24, 2008.
    Sung U. Park, Esquire, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Lisa Marie Arnold, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., Esquire, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 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, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Filogonio Garcia Guzman, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order sustaining the Department of Homeland Security’s appeal from an immigration judge’s decision granting petitioner cancellation of removal. 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 his qualifying relatives. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).

Petitioner’s contention that the BIA violated due process by disregarding his evidence of hardship is not supported by the record and therefore does not amount to a colorable constitutional 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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     