
    German Ricardo ORTIZ-RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-72630.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 15, 2013.
    
    Filed Jan. 16, 2013.
    Dominic Edward Capeci, I, Esquire, Law Offices of Dominic E. Capeci, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Oil, Rebecca Hoff-berg Phillips, Esquire, Trial, Ada Elsie Bosque, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

German Ricardo Ortiz-Ramirez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying Ortiz-Ramirez’s applications for adjustment of status and voluntary departure. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of adjustment of status or voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)®; Gil v. Holder, 651 F.3d 1000, 1006 (9th Cir.2011) (voluntary departure); Bazua-Cota v. Gonzales, 466 F.3d 747, 748 (9th Cir.2006) (per cu-riam) (adjustment of status). Ortiz-Ramirez’s contentions that the agency improperly relied on a probation report in its discretionary analysis and applied an incorrect discretionary standard to his case do not present colorable constitutional claims or questions of law sufficient to restore our jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D) and are not supported by the record. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir.2009) (“To be colorable in this context, ... the claim [or question] must have some possible validity.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

We also lack jurisdiction to review Ortiz-Ramirez’s contention that the agency misapplied the law by citing two uncharged arrests as adverse discretionary factors, because Ortiz-Ramirez failed to raise this issue in his appellate brief to the BIA. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir.2010).

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