
    Xavier MABALE, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-71323.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 10, 2015.
    
    Filed March 16, 2015.
    Ahmed M. Abdallah, Law Office of Ahmed M. Abdallah, Hollywood, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ernesto Horacio Molina, Jr., Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Joanna L. Watson, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Xavier Mabale, a native and citizen of Kenya, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his motion to reopen. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review Mabale’s challenge to the BIA’s determination that the evidence he submitted with his motion to reopen did not alter its previous decision to deny his application for a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h) as a matter of discretion. See Mejia v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 991, 999 (9th Cir.2007) (we lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of a waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h)); Fernandez v. Gonzales, 439 F.3d 592, 602 (9th Cir.2006) (under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), we lack jurisdiction over motions to reopen regarding cases in which the agency has already “made a prior .discretionary determination concerning the relief sought”). Mabale has not raised a colorable legal or constitutional claim that would restore our jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D).

The motion of Mabale’s retained counsel, Ahmed M. Abdallah, to withdraw as counsel of record is granted. The Clerk shall enter on the docket petitioner, 1540 E. Cornfield Ln., Unit 41, Anaheim, CA 92305, as appearing pro se. The Clerk shall serve this memorandum disposition on former counsel and on petitioner individually.

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