of removal. We dismiss the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that the petitioners failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929 (9th Cir.2005). The petitioners’ contentions that the agency failed to consider all the factors relevant to their ease, disregarded testimony regarding hardship to Esparza’s United States Citizen mother, and misapplied the law to the facts of their case, do not state colorable due process claims. See id. 930 (“[traditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.”); see also Sanchez-Cruz v. INS, 255 F.3d 775, 779 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. ** This
holding that whether consent was valid under the fourth amendment is a question of law to be reviewed de novo holding that a sufficiency challenge must be preserved in the trial court in a parental termination case to be reviewed on appeal holding that a factual sufficiency complaint in a parental termination case may be reviewed even though it was not preserved in the trial court holding that misapplication of career offender enhancement in light of intervening case law not a miscarriage of justice because guideline range still within statutory maximum authorized holding that the misapplication of case law may not be reviewed