Martha Valdez-Gomez, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks a petition for review of the order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of her application for cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. She asserts that the BIA abused its discretion in agreeing with the IJ’s hardship determination regarding the effect that her removal would have on her children who are United States citizens.

We generally review only the BIA’s decision except to the extent that the IJ’s decision influences the BIA. Zhu v. Gonzales, 49 3 F.3d 588, 593 (5th Cir. 2007). With respect to the determination that Gomez-Valdez failed to demonstrate that her children would suffer an “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” as required under § 1229b(b)(l), Gomez-Valdez does not raise any constitutional issues or purely legal questions,- and her argument amounts to little more than a disagreement with the weighing and consideration of the relevant factors by the IJ and the BIA; therefore, we lack jurisdiction to review this purely discretionary decision. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Sung v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 372, 377 (5th Cir. 2007); Bravo v. Ashcroft, 341 F.3d 590, 593 (5th Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we DISMISS Valdez-Gomez’s petition for review for WANT OF JURISDICTION.