
    Vicente Saldivar CASTANEDA; Maria Teresa Saldivar, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-70059.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 16, 2007.
    
    Filed April 24, 2007.
    Elsa I. Martinez, Esq., Martinez Golds-by & Associates, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
    CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Jamie M. Dowd, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Vicente Saldivar Casteneda and Maria Teresa Saldivar seek review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding an immigration judge’s order denying the petitioners’ application for cancellation of removal. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings. See Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.2001). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that the petitioners failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative, see Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003), and the petitioners do not raise a colorable constitutional 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.”).

The agency did not err in failing to evaluate the hardship the petitioners’ United States citizen children would experience if the children remained in the United States, where there was insufficient evidence regarding the petitioners’ intentions. See Perez v. INS, 96 F.3d 390, 393 (9th Cir.1996).

The petitioners’ constitutional challenge to the jurisdictional bar prohibiting review of discretionary decisions is unavailing. See, e.g., Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1152 (9th Cir.1997).

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.
     