
    Inderjit KAUR, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-73434
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted March 8, 2017 
    
    Filed March 16, 2017
    Inderjit Kaur, Pro Se
    Theresia C. Sandhu, Esquire, Attorney, Law Office of Theresia C. Sandhu, San Jose, CA, for Petitioner
    Eric Warren Marsteller, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Don George Scroggin, Esquire, Trial 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: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Inderjit Kaur, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) final order of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary decision to deny Kaur’s application for a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(1). See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i). Knur fails to raise a col-orable constitutional claim or question of law to invoke our jurisdiction. See Corona-Mendez v. Holder, 593 F.3d 1143, 1146 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court has jurisdiction to review a discretionary determination only if it involves constitutional claims or questions of law); Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (a claim that the agency did not properly weigh hardship evidence does not state a color-able due process claim); De Mercado v. Mukasey, 566 F.3d 810, 816 (9th Cir. 2009) (evaluating hardship to a qualifying relative necessarily implicates family unity, and to carve out an exception to lack of jurisdiction would “swallow the rule itself’).

In light of this decision, we need not reach Kaur’s contentions regarding the Id’s credibility finding.

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