the motion to reopen, because the BIA considered the evidence Perez-Lopez submitted and acted within its broad discretion in determining that the evidence was insufficient to warrant reopening. See Singh v. INS, 295 F.3d 1037, 1039 (9th Cir.2002) (The BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen shall be reversed only if it is “arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law.”). Perez-Lopez’s contention that the agency failed to consider all hardship factors does not state 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 Sanchez-Cruz v. INS, 255 F.3d 775, 779 (9th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED
holding that a sufficiency challenge must be preserved in the trial court in a parental termination case to be reviewed on appeal holding that the misapplication of case law may not be reviewed 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 whether consent was valid under the fourth amendment is a question of law to be reviewed de novo 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