Abrahamyan

facts and recite them only as necessary. “Where, as here, the BIA agrees with the

IJ’s reasoning, we review both decisions.” Garcia-Martinez v. Sessions, 886 F.3d

1291, 1293 (9th Cir. 2018). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a),

but our review of the agency’s discretionary adjustment-of-status determination is

limited to “constitutional claims” and “questions of law,” 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(2)(B), (D). To invoke the court’s jurisdiction, a constitutional or legal

claim must be “colorable,” i.e., “the claim must have some possible validity.”

Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Martinez-

Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005)).

We dismiss the petition because Petitioners have not advanced a colorable

argument that the agency committed a legal or constitutional error by denying

Abrahamyan’s application for adjustment of status on the ground that Abrahamyan

failed to show that she was statutorily eligible for discretionary relief. Petitioners

argue that the agency violated Abrahamyan’s due process rights by relying on

allegedly unauthenticated exhibits. To succeed on a due process challenge,

1 The BIA noted that…