
    Mohammed ASHRAF, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-71520.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 17, 2007 .
    Filed Nov. 2, 2007.
    Jonathan M. Kaufman, Esq., San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, John R. Cunningham, Esq., Edward C. Durant, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: WALLACE, KLEINFELD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Peter D. Keisler is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Acting Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mohammed Ashraf seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding an immigration judge’s order denying Ashraf s application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary determination that an applicant has 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 Ashraf does 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.”); see also Kumar v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 520, 523-24 (9th Cir.2006) (noting that violation of agency regulations reviewed for harmless error); Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095 (9th Cir.2000) (recognizing that alleged procedural defects in immigration proceedings do not rise to level of due process violation absent a showing of prejudice).

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