*25 SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review is DISMISSED.

Petitioner Edward Maciejowski, a native and citizen of Poland, seeks review of an April 5, 2013, decision of the BIA affirming the June 14, 2011, decision of Immigration Judge (“IJ”) Michael W. Straus, denying as a matter of discretion his application to adjust status. In re Edward Maciejowski, No. A099 158 685 (B.I.A. Apr. 5, 2013), aff'g No. A099 158 685 (Immig. Ct. Hartford June 14, 2011). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history in this case.

We have considered both the IJ’s and the BIA’s opinions “for the sake of completeness.” Zaman v. Mukasey, 514 F.3d 233, 237 (2d Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s exercise of discretion to deny Maciejowski’s application to adjust status. See Guyadin v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 465, 468-69 (2d Cir. 2006). We do retain jurisdiction to review de novo “constitutional claims or questions of law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Pierre v. Holder, 588 F.3d 767, 772 (2d Cir. 2009). However, “we lack jurisdiction to review any legal argument that is so insubstantial and frivolous as to be inadequate to invoke federal-question jurisdiction.” Barco-Sandoval v. Gonzales, 516 F.3d 35, 40 (2d Cir. 2008).

Maciejowski’s arguments are not color-able. First, contrary to his main contention, the IJ and BIA did not rely solely on the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ determination that he married to obtain immigration benefits: the IJ afforded Maciejowski the opportunity to supplement the record with evidence relevant to the bona fide nature of his marriage. Second, probative record evidence supports the IJ’s and BIA’s finding that his marriage was fraudulent and entered into for the purpose of obtaining immigration benefits.

Since Maciejowski fails to raise a color-able constitutional claim or question of law, we are without jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary denial of relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B); see also Guyad-in, 449 F.3d at 468-69; Barco-Sandoval, 516 F.3d at 40.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DISMISSED.