
    Luis Heriberto MACANCELA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., United States Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 10-1332-ag.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    April 18, 2011.
    H. Raymond Fasano, Madeo & Fasano, New York, NY, for Petitioner.
    Franklin M. Johnson, Trial Attorney, Office of Immigration Litigation (Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel, on the brief), for Eric H. Holder, Jr., United States Attorney General, Washington, D.C. for Respondent.
    PRESENT: AMALYA L. KEARSE, ROGER J. MINER, DENNY CHIN, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

Luis Heriberto Macanéela, a native and citizen of Ecuador, petitions for review of a March 11, 2010 final order of removal of the BIA affirming a March 10, 2009 decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Philip Verrillo denying Macancela’s application for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l). The IJ determined that Macanéela failed to establish that: (1) his removal would result in “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his three U.S. citizen children, § 1229b(b)(l)(D), and (2) he “has been a person of good moral character,” § 1229b(b)(l)(B), in light of his history of arrests for drunk driving and domestic violence, see In re Macancela, No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (B.I.A. Mar. 11, 2010), aff'g No. [ AXXX XXX XXX ] (Immig.Ct.Hartford, Conn. Mar. 10, 2009). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history of the case.

On a petition for review of a denial of an application for cancellation of removal, we have jurisdiction only to consider constitutional claims and questions of law, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)®, (D), and we review those issues de novo, see Bah v. Mu-kasey, 529 F.3d 99, 110 (2d Cir.2008). In addition, because the BIA did not explicitly adopt the IJ’s decision in its analysis, we review only the BIA’s decision, Aliyev v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 111, 115-16 (2d Cir. 2008), which was based on its conclusion that Macanéela had not shown that his removal would result in “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his children, see 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D). The decision as to whether an application for cancellation of removal should be granted based on a claim of hardship is a determination committed to the agency’s discretion, and we lack jurisdiction to review that decision, see § 1252(a)(2)(B)®, “except in those rare cases where the BIA decision ... is made without rational justification or based on an erroneous legal standard, or rests on fact-finding which is flawed by an error of law,” Mendez v. Holder, 566 F.3d 316, 322 (2d Cir.2009) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Macanéela argues that the BIA so overestimated his ability to support his family once he is removed and so understated the extent of his son’s speech disabilities that its conclusions constituted an error of law. But Macanéela fails to show, as he must to give the court jurisdiction, that “some facts important to the subtle determination of [hardship] have been totally overlooked and others have been seriously mischarac-terized.” Id. at 323. Rather, the record supports the BIA’s conclusion that Ma-cancela’s family in Ecuador may be able to offer financial assistance and that Ma-canéela is likely to find agricultural or construction work. The record also indicates that the therapy Macancela’s son presently receives will continue in his absence. We do not doubt that removal will be difficult for Macancela’s family, but “a petitioner cannot use the rhetoric of a ‘constitutional claim’ or ‘question of lav/ to disguise what is essentially a quarrel about fact-finding or the exercise of discretion,” Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 39 (2d Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted), that we lack jurisdiction to review, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(I).

We have considered petitioner’s other arguments and conclude they are without merit. Accordingly, the petition for review is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.  