
    Eduardo LEON-FLORES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 08-72848.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Nov. 19, 2010.
    James Franklin Metcalf, Metcalf & Metealf, P.C., Yuma, AZ, for Petitioner.
    Sarnia Naseem, OIL, Blair O’Connor, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, District Counsel Phoenix, Esquire, Office of the District Director, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Eduardo Leon-Flores, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order sustaining the government’s appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision granting a waiver of inadmissibility under former section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law and constitutional claims, Figueroa v. Mulcasey, 543 F.3d 487, 491 (9th Cir.2008), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary denial of Leon-Flores’ application for relief under section 212(c), see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) and Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 923 (9th Cir.2007) (“Discretionary decisions, including whether or not to grant § 212(c) relief, are not renewable.”), and Leon-Flores has not raised a colorable due process challenge to the discretionary determination, see Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005). His contentions that the BIA applied an incorrect legal standard in adjudicating his application for section 212(c) relief are not persuasive.

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