context: We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's discretionary determination that Sosa failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. Sosa's contention that the agency deprived him of due process by misapplying the law to the facts of his case and by disregarding their evidence of hardship is not supported by the record and does not amount to a colorable constitutional claim.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 424 F.3d 926, 930
citation_a.parenthetical: "traditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction."
citation_a.sentence: 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 that the “misapplication of case law” may not be reviewed).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 255 F.3d 775, 779
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that the "misapplication of case law" may not be reviewed
citation_b.sentence: 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 that the “misapplication of case law” may not be reviewed).