
    Therese Georges HASSROUNY, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-71179.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
    
    Filed Jan. 21, 2010.
    Monica N. Ganjoo, Esq., Ganjoo Law Office, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esq., Kevin Conway, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Therese Georges Hassrouny, a native and citizen of Lebanon, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying her application for adjustment of status. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 and we dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the Id’s discretionary denial of Hassrouny’s application for adjustment of status. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Bazua-Cota v. Gonzales, 466 F.Bd 747, 748 (9th Cir.2006) (per curiam). Hassrouny’s contention that the IJ improperly weighed the evidence in her case does not present a colorable constitutional claim or question of law over which this court may exercise jurisdiction. See Bazua-Cota, 466 F.3d at 749.

We lack jurisdiction to review Hassrouny’s contention regarding the alleged ineffective assistance she received from her prior counsel because she did not exhaust that issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

We reject Hassrouny’s attempt to supplement the record. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A) (“[T]he court shall decide the petition only on the administrative record on which the order of removal is based.”).

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