Casino

MEMORANDUM **

Jose Cabusas Casino seeks judicial review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) order of removal. The BIA adopted the IJ’s decision denying Casino’s applications for adjustment of status and voluntary departure, and also rejected Casino’s motion to remand. We deny Casino’s petition.

‘We determine our own jurisdiction de novo.” Rosales-Rosales v. Ashcroft, 347 F.3d 714, 716 (9th Cir.2003). While we have no jurisdiction to review discretionary decisions regarding adjustment of status or voluntary departure, we are not barred from hearing constitutional challenges or legal questions related to such decisions. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(B)(i); 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a)(2)(D).

*590 “We review for abuse of discretion the BIA’s denial of a motion to remand.” Garcia-Quintero v. Gonzales, 455 F.3d 1006, 1011 (9th Cir.2006).

We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s decision because Casino neither raises a colorable due process claim nor presents a legal question, but only challenges the IJ’s weighing of the evidence. See Sanchez-Cruz v. INS, 255 F.3d 775, 779 (9th Cir.2001) (“[Ajbuse of discretion claims recast as due process…