Case Name: Marc NADEAU, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-10-20
Citations: 620 F. App'x 597
Docket Number: No. 13-74162
Parties: Marc NADEAU, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 620
Pages: 597–598

Head Matter:
Marc NADEAU, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 13-74162.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 14, 2015.
Filed Oct. 20, 2015.
Monica Mansouri, Mansouri and Sheeno, Sherman Oaks, CA, for Petitioner.
Todd J. Cochran, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, BYBEE, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Marc Nadeau, a native and citizen of Canada, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for adjustment of status. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's discretionary denial of adjustment of status. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)® (the court lacks jurisdiction to review any judgment regarding the discretionary denial of relief under 8 U.S.C. § 1255). Na-deau's due process challenges do not constitute colorable constitutional claims or questions of law that would invoke our jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Bazua-Cota v. Gonzales, 466 F.3d 747, 749 (9th Cir.2006) (per curiam) ("abuse of discretion challenges to discretionary decisions, even if recast as due process claims, do not constitute colorable constitutional claims").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.