In Kyung Pak v. Jefferson Sessions

MEMORANDUM ** In Kyung Pak, a native and citizen of South Korea, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration *497 judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal for legal permanent residents. We dismiss the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of cancellation of removal as a matter of discretion. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)®; Monroy v. Lynch, 821 F.3d 1175, 1177-78 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that petitioner did not raise a reviewable issue because “he simply disagrees with the agency’s weighing of his positive equities and the negative factors”). Although the court would retain jurisdiction over colorable questions of law and constitutional claims, Pak’s contentions that the agency failed to consider or properly analyze relevant evidence, or apply the correct legal standard are not supported by the record and do not amount to colorable claims. See 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 and internal quotation marks omitted)). PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. Footnotes [**] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.