
    Juan REYNEL-SALINAS, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-73141
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 9, 2017 
    
    Filed August 14, 2017
    
      Jeffrey Charles Gonzales, Attorney, Law Offices of Jeffrey C. Gonzales, Portland, OR, for Petitioner
    Juan Reynel-Salinas, Pro Se
    Lisa Morinelli, Attorney, OIL, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Juan Reynel-Salinas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Rey-nel-Salinas failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relatives. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). Reynel-Salinas’ contentions that the agency failed to provide a reasoned explanation, consider the totality of the circumstances, or consider relevant arguments and evidence are not supported by the record and thus do not invoke our jurisdiction. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (absent a colorable legal or constitutional claim, the court lacks jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination regarding hardship); Martinez-Rosas, 424 F.3d at 930 (“To be colorable in this context, ... the claim must have some possible validity.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     