NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GABRIEL KINYANJUI KIGAMBA,

Petitioner,

v. JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent. No s
. 12

- 73868 13

- 7 1389 Agency No. A097

- 591

- 825

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition s for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 9, 2017 ** Seattle, Washington Before: GRABER, IKUTA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
After Gabriel Kigamba, a native and citizen of Kenya, overstayed his non

immigrant visa , he applied for asylum

. At some point, he obtained a document purportedly issue d by an immigration judge (“IJ”) granting that application . In 2009, Kigamba filed an application for adjustment of status based on t his docu ment

. But,

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

MAR 13 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

when t he government instituted removal proceedings in 2010, Kigamba admitted removability. Although he initially told the IJ in th e removal proceedings that he
intended to seek asylum, he ins t ead moved for a continuance so that his wife, a
United States citizen, could file an I

- 130 petition , which could serve as the basis for adjustment of status

. T he IJ denied Kigam

ba’s request for a continuance , finding, among other things, that the document that Ki g amba submitted purporting to grant him a sylum

was fraudulent

. T he B oard of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirmed , and also
den ied a motion to remand , and denied a subsequent motion to reopen after the I

130 petition was granted

. We dismiss Kigamba’s consolidated petitions for review in part and deny them in part.
1. We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s decision denying the discretionary relief of adjustment of status. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); s ee Bazua

- Cota v.
Gonzales , 466 F.3d 747, 748 (9th Cir. 2006) ( order ). Although we have jurisdiction
to review colorable constitutional challenges to discretionary decisions , Kigamba’s argument that the BIA denied him due process by failing to properly consider all of the equities is simply “ an abuse of discretion challenge re

- characterized as an alleged due process violation ,” not a colorable constitutional claim. 1 See Bazua

- Cota , 466

1 We also dismiss Kigamba’s petitions insofar as they attack the IJ’s denial of a continuance to allow the processing of his wife’s I

- 130 petition. The BIA noted the grant of that petition in its order denying the motion to reopen, but nonetheless3

F.3d at 748

- 49.
2. We do have jurisdiction to review the nondiscretionary aspects of the BIA’s denial of Kigamba’s motions to reop en and to remand. See Medina

- Morales v. Ashcroft , 371 F.3d 520, 526

- 27 , 531 (9th Cir. 2004)

. But , w e deny the petition s because the IJ’s underlying adverse credibility determination is supported by
substantial evidence in the record

. See Rivera v. Mukas ey , 508 F.3d 1271, 1274 (9th
Cir. 2007)

. The IJ reasonably concluded that Kigamba had submitted fraudulent
evidence of a grant of asylum, offering only a n “ absurd ” explanation as to why he
believed that he had been granted asylum

. PETITION S DISMISSED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART
.

determine d that Kigamba “would not be entitled to the discretionary grant of relief which he sought,” INS v. Doherty , 502 U.S. 314, 323 (1992), a determination not subject to judicial review, see Bazua

- Cota , 466 F.3d at 748.