
    Oscar Jesus RODRIGUEZ-MORENO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 15-72272
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 26, 2017 
    
    Filed October 2, 2017
    
      Erin Trusler Hall, Amanda L. Bhuket, Attorneys, Global Justice Law Group, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner
    OIL, Lori Warlick, Trial Attorney, 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: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Oscar Jesus Rodríguez-Moreno, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) decision denying cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

Rodriguez-Moreno’s contentions that the agency failed to consider his arguments on appeal, violated due process by mischarac-terizing or failing to consider evidence, and failed to conduct a future-oriented analysis are not supported by the record, and do not amount to colorable claims that would invoke jurisdiction over the agency’s hardship determination. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (absent a colorable legal or constitutional claim, the court lacks jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination regarding hardship); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005) (“To be colorable in this context, ... the claim must have some possible validity.” (citation omitted)); Larita-Martinez v. INS, 220 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[A]n alien attempting to establish that the Board violated his right to due process by failing to consider relevant evidence must overcome the presumption that it did review the evidence.”).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Rodriguez-Moreno’s unexhausted contention that he was denied a full and fair hearing before the IJ. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court lacks jurisdiction to consider legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the BIA).

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