22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T512,MEMORANDUM Juan Reynel-Salinas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review. We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Rey-nel-Salinas failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relatives. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). Reynel-Salinas’ contentions that the agency failed to provide a reasoned explanation, consider the totality of the circumstances, or consider relevant arguments and evidence are not supported by the record and thus do not invoke our jurisdiction. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (absent a colorable legal or constitutional claim, the court lacks jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination regarding hardship); Martinez-Rosas, 424 F.3d at 930 (“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 36-3.24:T53f,

MEMORANDUM

Juan Reynel-Salinas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Rey-nel-Salinas failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his qualifying relatives. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005). Reynel-Salinas’ contentions that the agency failed to provide a reasoned explanation, consider the totality of the circumstances, or consider relevant arguments and evidence are not supported by the record and thus do not invoke our jurisdiction. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (absent a colorable legal or constitutional claim, the court lacks jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination regarding hardship); Martinez-Rosas, 424 F.3d at 930 (“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.