Case Name: Alfredo IMANIL, AKA Karl Koja, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-22
Citations: 713 F. App'x 569
Docket Number: No. 16-70179
Parties: Alfredo IMANIL, AKA Karl Koja, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 713
Pages: 569–570

Head Matter:
Alfredo IMANIL, AKA Karl Koja, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 16-70179
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted February 13, 2018
Filed February 22, 2018
Alfredo Imanil, Pro Se
Matt A. Crapo, Attorney, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, 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
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.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.