
    Cristina PARRAGA, a.k.a. Cristina Valentin, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-4962-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    Dec. 18, 2013.
    Glenn T. Terk, Wethersfield, CT, for Appellant.
    Tiffany L. Walters, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice (Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General; David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, on the brief), Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
    
      Present: ROSEMARY S. POOLER, GERARD E. LYNCH, and RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Petitioner Cristina Parraga, a native and citizen of Peru, seeks review of a November 21, 2012 order of the BIA, affirming the September 7, 2010 decision of the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) (Straus, /.), which affirmed the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service’s (“USCIS”) denial of a hardship waiver under Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 216(c)(4)(B), 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(c)(4)(B). See Cristina Parraga, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (BIA Nov. 21, 2012), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immigr. Ct. Hartford, CT Sept. 7, 2010). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review.

The applicable standards of review of a BIA order are well established. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B); see also Yanqin Weng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 510, 513 (2d Cir.2009). Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s credibility determinations and the weight given to evidence in the context of a hardship waiver determination under INA § 216(c)(4)(B). See Contreras-Salinas v. Holder, 585 F.3d 710, 713-14 (2d Cir.2009). Nevertheless, we retain jurisdiction to review constitutional claims and questions of law. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); see also Boluk v. Holder, 642 F.3d 297, 303 (2d Cir.2011).

On appeal, Parraga challenges the agency’s credibility determination. Her arguments fail to raise reviewable constitutional claims or questions of law. See Contreras-Salinas, 585 F.3d at 714 (“Because we conclude that petitioner’s claims challenge only credibility determinations and the weight given to evidence by the IJ and BIA, we lack jurisdiction over her claims.”). While Parraga takes issue with the agency’s finding that her submission of fraudulent documents to USCIS undercut her testimony and other evidence, we have recognized that, under the doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything), once an IJ concludes that a document is false, he or she is “free to deem suspect other documents (and to disbelieve other testimony) that depend for probative weight upon [the petitioner’s] veracity.” Siewe v. Gonzales, 480 F.3d 160, 170 (2d Cir.2007). “[A] single false document or a single instance of false testimony may (if attributable to the petitioner) infect the balance of the alien’s uncorroborated or unauthenticated evidence.” Id. “In other words, a finding of fraudulent evidence redounds upon all evidence the probative force of which relies in any part on the credibility of the petitioner.” Id. Further, although Parraga contends that her explanation that she was unaware that she had submitted fraudulent documents to USCIS was plausible, the court is not required to credit an alien’s explanations for inconsistencies in the record unless a reasonable fact-finder would be “compelled to credit [her] testimony.” Majidi v. Gonzales, 430 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir.2005).

While Parraga also asserts that her evidence was sufficient to establish that her marriage was entered into in good faith, we lack jurisdiction to “reevaluate the relative strength of the evidence presented to the immigration judge.... The amount of weight to be accorded any particular fact raises no question of law and is accordingly not within this Court’s jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination.” Bo-luk, 642 F.3d at 304 (internal quotation marks omitted). As Parraga has failed to raise a reviewable constitutional claim or question of law with respect to the agency’s denial of her request for a hardship waiver, we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DISMISSED.  