
    Cristobal CAMPOS-AVALOS, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-74279.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 21, 2015.
    
    Filed Sept. 25, 2015.
    Thomas A. Lappin, Esquire, Law Office of Thomas A. Lappin, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
    Wendy Benner-Leon, Esquire, Kathryn Deangelis, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Cristobal Campos-Avalos, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of his applications for a waiver of inadmissibility and for relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”), and denying his motion to remand. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 921 (9th Cir.2007), and review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, Zheng v. Ashcroft, 332 F.3d 1186, 1193 (9th Cir.2003); We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary decision to deny a waiver under former INA § 212(c). Vargas-Hernandez, 497 F.3d at 923 (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)). Although this Court retains jurisdiction to review color-able questions of law or constitutional claims, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), Campos-Avalos’s contention that the agency failed to consider all the relevant factors in exercising its discretion is not supported by the record. Mendez-Castro v. Muka-sey, 552 F.3d 975, 979-80 (9th Cir.2009). Campos-Avalos’s remaining challenges to the agency’s discretionary decision are not colorable constitutional or legal challenges that invoke our jurisdiction. See id.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief where Campos-Avalos failed to establish it is more likely than not that he would be tortured if he returned to Mexico. See Zhang v. Ashcroft, 388 F.8d 713, 721-22 (9th Cir.2004).

Campos-Avalos’s contention that the BIA failed to consider- evidence submitted with his motion to remand is not supported by the record.

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