
    Edgar Raul MARTINEZ-BARRIEN-TOS, a.k.a. Edgar Raul Martinez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-73570.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 13, 2014.
    
    Filed May 28, 2014.
    Raul Ernesto Godinez, Esquire, Law Office of Raul E. Godinez, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    Matt Crapo, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Edgar Raul Martinez-Barrientos, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for cancellation of removal and waivers of inadmissibility under section 212(h) and former section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i) to review the BIA’s determination that Martinez-Barrientos did not merit relief from removal as a matter of discretion. See Mendoza v. Holder, 623 F.3d 1299, 1302 (9th Cir.2010) (section 212(h) waiver); Bermudez v. Holder, 586 F.3d 1167, 1169 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam) (cancellation of removal); Palma-Rojas v. INS, 244 F.3d 1191, 1192 (9th Cir.2001) (per curiam) (former section 212(c) waiver). Martinez-Barrientos raises no color-able constitutional claim or question of law that would invoke our jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D). See Bermudez, 586 F.3d at 1169 (“ ‘[A]ny challenge of [the BIA’s] discretionary determination must present a colorable claim’ in order for this court to exercise jurisdiction.” (citation omitted)); Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir.2009) (“To be colorable in this context, ... the claim must have some possible validity.”).

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