NOT FOR PUBLICATION                        FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAY 11 2020
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

OSCAR ARMANDO RAMIREZ-GARCIA,                   No.    18-70911
AKA Olegario Garcia-Ramirez,
                                                Agency No. A200-974-565
                Petitioner,

 v.                                             MEMORANDUM*

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General,

                Respondent.

                     On Petition for Review of an Order of the
                         Board of Immigration Appeals

                               Submitted May 6, 2020**

Before:      BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

      Oscar Armando Ramirez-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his ap-

peal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for cancella-

tion of removal and voluntary departure. We review de novo questions of law,



      *
             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).
including claims of due process violations. Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 

, 830 (9th Cir. 2014). We dismiss the petition for review.

      We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s decision denying cancellation of

removal and voluntary departure as a matter of discretion and its discretionary de-

termination that Ramirez-Garcia did not show exceptional and extremely unusual

hardship to his U.S. citizen child, where Ramirez-Garcia does not present a colora-

ble legal or constitutional claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f); 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (a)(2)(D); Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 

, 644 (9th Cir.

2012) (absent a colorable legal or constitutional claim, the court lacks jurisdiction

to review the agency’s discretionary determination regarding hardship).

      Ramirez-Garcia’s contentions that the agency erred or violated due process

because it did not properly weigh or consider evidence, or did not adequately ex-

plain its decision, are not colorable. See 

(“traditional

abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not pre-

sent sufficiently colorable constitutional questions as to give this court jurisdic-

tion”); Najmabadi v. Holder, 

, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (“What is required

is merely that [the agency] consider the issues raised, and announce its decision in

terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and

thought and not merely reacted.” (citation omitted)).

      PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.



                                           2                                     18-70911