Espinoza

MEMORANDUM **

This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying petitioner’s application for cancellation of removal and “motion for admission of additional evidence.”

We have reviewed the response to the court’s September 4, 2008 order to show cause, and we conclude that petitioner has failed to raise a colorable constitutional or legal claim to invoke our jurisdiction over the portion of the BIA’s order denying his application for cancellation of removal. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926 (9th Cir.2006); Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001). Accordingly, the court dismisses this portion of the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(B); Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003); Montero-Martinez v. Ashcroft, 277 F.3d 1137, 1144 (9th Cir.2002).

We review the BIA’s ruling on motions to reopen for abuse of discretion. See Perez v. Mukasey, 516 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir.2008).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in considering petitioner’s “motion for admission of additional evidence” as a motion to reopen. See, e.g., Socop-Gonzalez v. INS, 272 F.3d 1176, 1180…