
    Gaby Rubi Moguel MANZANILLA; Jose Dolores Hernandez Cauich, Petitioners, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-73522.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 20, 2007.
    
    Filed Dec. 28, 2007.
    Gaby Rubi Moguel Manzanilla, Redwood City, CA, pro se.
    Jose Dolores Hernandez Cauich, Redwood City, CA, pro se.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Mary Jane Candaux, Esq., Melissa Neiman-Kelting, Esq., DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Gaby Rubi Moguel Manzanilla and Jose Dolores Hernandez Cauich petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an immigration judge’s order denying their application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary determination that Moguel Manzanilla and Hernandez Cauich failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative, see Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.2003), and they do not raise a colorable due process claim, see Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005) (“traditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.”). We do not consider petitioners’ contention regarding moral character because their failure to establish hardship is dispositive.

We further lack jurisdiction to review petitioners’ contention that they were unable to present all of their evidence regarding hardship because they failed to raise that issue before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (explaining that this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency)

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     