NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
IN KYUNG PAK, No. 15-73074
Petitioner, Agency No. A038-662-918
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
In Kyung Pak, a native and citizen of South Korea, petitions 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
for legal permanent residents. We dismiss the petition for review.
*
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).
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, Pak’s contentions that the agency failed to consider or
properly analyze relevant evidence, or apply the correct legal standard are not
supported by the record and do not amount to colorable claims. 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.
2 15-73074