
    Eligio Perez OLIVERA; Consuelo Jimenez-Cruz; Ana Lidia Perez Jimenez; Luis Alberto Perez Jimenez; Angelica Perez Jimenez, Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-75854.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 16, 2007.
    
    Filed April 20, 2007.
    Susan E. Hill, Esq., Hill & Piibe, 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, John S. Hogan, Esq., San Francisco, CA, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Offiee of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CLIFTON 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

Eligió Perez Olivera, Consuelo Jimenez-Cruz and their children, seek review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding an immigration judge’s order denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary determination that 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).

Petitioners’ contention that the hardship standard set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D) is unconstitutionally vague does not state a colorable due process claim. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005) (“[TJraditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.”).

Petitioners’ motion to hold proceedings in abeyance is denied.

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