
    Jesus Jasso NAVARRO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-71291.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 10, 2014.
    
    Filed March 14, 2014.
    Jesus Jasso Navarro, Baja, CA, pro se.
    Susan Bennett Green, Trial, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jesus Jasso Navarro, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of cancellation of removal as a matter of discretion. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

In his opening brief, Navarro fails to address, and therefore has waived any challenge to, the BIA’s removability determination. See Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir.1996) (holding issues that are not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived).

We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s denial of cancellation of removal in the exercise of discretion. See Bermudez v. Holder, 586 F.3d 1167, 1169 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam). Moreover, Jasso Navarro’s contention that he feels the United States is the best place for him is not a sufficiently colorable constitutional claim or question of law to trigger our jurisdiction. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir.2009) (“To be colorable in this context, the violation need not be substantial, but the claim must have some possible validity.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     