MEMORANDUM **

*693 Jose Luis Parra-Valenzuela petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ denial of his application for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l). We deny the petition.

(1) In general, we do not have jurisdiction to review decisions “regarding the granting of relief under section ... 1229b.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)®. However, there is an exception for “constitutional claims or questions of law.” Id. § 1252(a)(2)(D); see also Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005).

(2) Parra asserts that the BIA committed legal error when it determined that he had not shown good moral character 1 because he engaged in marriage fraud. We disagree. Marriage fraud is a factor that the BIA can consider when it exercises its discretion regarding good moral character. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f) (final paragraph, catch-all provision); see also Limsico v. INS, 951 F.2d 210, 213-14 (9th Cir. 1991). The record shows that the only character evidence before the BIA was the undisputed evidence that Parra had committed marriage fraud, 2 and we lack jurisdiction to review its discretionary decision that he, therefore, lacked good moral character. 3 To the extent that Parra is making a due process claim also, nothing before us indicates that he was denied a fundamentally fair hearing. See Gutierrez, 662 F.3d at 1091.

(3) Finally, Parra has not presented arguments about the denial of voluntary departure 4 and has, therefore, waived any issue regarding that. 5 If he intended that his good moral character argument would apply to both cancellation and voluntary departure, what we have said regarding cancellation would apply to both issues.

Petition DENIED.