
    Victor MIRANDA-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-70464.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 9, 2015.
    
    Filed Dec. 15, 2015.
    Fernando Luis Cosio, Law Office of Fernando L. Cosio, Honolulu, HI, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Juria L. Jones, Trial, O.I.L., D.O.J.-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Victor Miranda-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order affirming an immigration judge’s denial of his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Miranda-Hernandez failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.2003). Miranda-Hernandez’s contention that the hardship standard set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D) is unconstitutionally vague does not constitute a colorable constitutional claim or question of law that would invoke our jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); 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”).

We do not consider Miranda-Hernandez’s contentions regarding physical presence because his failure to establish hardship is dispositive. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D); Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir.2004) (“As a general rule courts ... are not required to make findings on issues the decision of which is unnecessary to the results they reach.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     