With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: holding that a sufficiency challenge must be preserved in the trial court in a parental termination case to be reviewed on appeal
B: holding that the misapplication of case law may not be reviewed
C: holding that whether consent was valid under the fourth amendment is a question of law to be reviewed de novo
D: holding that a factual sufficiency complaint in a parental termination case may be reviewed even though it was not preserved in the trial court
B.