Nicanor Soto-Soto v. Jefferson Sessions

MEMORANDUM ** Alfredo Imanil, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. 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)(i); 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, Imanil raises no such claim. 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.