Case Name: J. Jesus LOPEZ-CERVANTES, a.k.a. Jesus Lopez Cervantes, a.k.a Jesus Cervantes-Lopez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-08-16
Citations: 538 F. App'x 757
Docket Number: No. 12-71167
Parties: J. Jesus LOPEZ-CERVANTES, a.k.a. Jesus Lopez Cervantes, a.k.a Jesus Cervantes-Lopez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 538
Pages: 757–758

Head Matter:
J. Jesus LOPEZ-CERVANTES, a.k.a. Jesus Lopez Cervantes, a.k.a Jesus Cervantes-Lopez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-71167.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 14, 2013.
Filed Aug. 16, 2013.
Joseph Arthur Mbacho, Sr., Esquire, Law Offices of Joseph Mbacho, El Centro, CA, for Petitioner.
Todd J. Cochran, OIL, DOJ-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: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, 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
J. Jesus Lopez-Cervantes, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order summarily affirming a decision of an immigration judge ("IJ") denying his application for cancellation of removal in the exercise of discretion. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ's denial of cancellation of removal in the exercise of discretion. See Bermudez v. Holder, 586 F.3d 1167, 1169 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam). Moreover, Lopez-Cervantes's contention that the agency failed to consider his evidence is not a sufficiently colorable constitutional claim or question of law to trigger our jurisdiction. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir.2009) ("To be colorable in this context, the violation need not be substantial, but 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.