The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed November 2, 2010.
James G. Roche, Esquire, Roche Lawfirm, LLC, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioners.
Aram A. Gavoor, Trial, Patricia Ann Smith, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJU.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency Nos. A095-449-318, A095-449-319.
Before: O'SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Luis Torres Falfan and Angelica Maria Medina Bahena, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying their motion to remand and dismissing their appeal of an immigration judge's decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's denial of cancellation of removal on hardship grounds. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005).
Petitioners' contentions that the BIA violated their due process rights by misapplying the law to the facts of their case and disregarding their evidence of hard-ship are not supported by the record and do not amount to colorable constitutional claims. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir. 2009).
Petitioners' motion to augment the record is denied. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A) ("[T]he court of appeals shall decide the petition only on the administrative record on which the order of removal is based.").