
    Lorena Velazquez LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-72184
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 25, 2016 
    
    Filed November 03, 2016
    Lorena Velazquez Lopez, Pro Se, Fonta-na, CA, for Petitioner.
    Jennifer A. Singer, Raya Jarawan, Esquire, Trial Attorney, Anthony Cardozo Payne, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, SILVERMAN, and GRABER, Circuit Judges,
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P, 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Lorena Velazquez Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, including due process claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The record does not support Velazquez Lopez’s contention that in denying her application for cancellation of removal for failure to establish the requisite hardship, the IJ assumed facts that were not in the record regarding the availability of other relatives to care for Velazquez Lopez’s parents. Rather, the IJ denied for lack of evidence regarding the availability of other relatives to care for Velazquez Lopez’s parents. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(4) (an alien has the burden of establishing eligibility for relief from removal).

Because the BIA denied Velazquez Lopez’s cancellation of removal application solely due to her failure to establish the requisite hardship, we may not review Velazquez Lopez’s contentions regarding good moral character. See Andia v. Ashcroft, 359 F.3d 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2004) (“In reviewing the decision of the BIA, we consider only the grounds relied upon by that agency.”).

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