
    Tomas FLORES, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 03-73919.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.
    
    Decided Dec. 13, 2004.
    Tomas Flores, Quincy, WA, pro se.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, WWS-District Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Tomas Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an immigration judge’s (“U”) denial of his application for cancellation of removal. We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that Flores failed to demonstrate the requisite “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1)(D). See id. § 1252(a)(2)(B)©; Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003). We dismiss the petition for review.

Flores’ contention that the IJ applied the wrong hardship standard in reviewing his application is without merit and does not raise a colorable due process challenge. See Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001) (“To be colorable ... the claim must have some possible validity”); Ortiz v. INS, 179 F.3d 1148, 1153 (9th Cir.1999) (“Due process challenges to deportation proceedings require a showing of prejudice to succeed.”).

Pursuant to Desta v. Ashcroft, 365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), petitioner’s motion for stay of removal included a timely request for stay of voluntary departure. Because the stay of removal was continued based on the government’s failure to respond to the stay motion, the voluntary departure period was also stayed, nunc pro tunc, as of the filing of the motion for stay of removal and this stay will expire upon issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     