
    Humberto JIMENEZ, aka Humberto Vergara Jimenez, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-70918
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2017 
    
    Filed March 16, 2017
    Humberto Jimenez, Pro Se
    Joseph Anthony O’Connell, 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

Humberto Jimenez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Jimenez failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). Although the court would retain jurisdiction over colorable questions of law and constitutional claims, Jimenez’s contentions that the agency failed to consider relevant evidence of hardship or apply the correct legal standard are not supported by the record and do not amount to colorable claims. See id. (“To be colorable in this context, ... the claim must have some possible validity.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We do not reach Jimenez’s contentions concerning denial as a matter of discretion, because the BIA did not rely on that ground. 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 DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     