
    Julian Alonso TORRES-MENDOZA, AKA Alonso Torres-Mendoza, AKA Alonso Julian Torres-Mendoza, AKA Jul Alonso Torres-Mendoza, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-71784
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2016 
    
    FILED June 24, 2016
    
      Benjamin Wiesinger, Pope & Associates, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Daniel Eric Goldman, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Jonathan Aaron Robbins, Esquire, Trial Attorney, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: REINHARDT, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Julian Alonso Torres-Mendoza, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination that Torres-Mendoza failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). Torres-Mendoza’s contention that he was denied due process by the IJ is not supported by the record and thus does not invoke our jurisdiction. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (absent a colorable legal or constitutional claim, the court lacks jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination regarding hardship); Martinez-Rosas, 424 F.3d at 930 (“To be colorable in this context, ... the claim must have some possible validity.”) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

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