NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SERGIO RUBEN GARCIA-CHAVIRA, No. 16-70508 Petitioner, Agency No. A097-422-245 v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted March 13, 2018**

Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Sergio Ruben Garcia-Chavira, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Contrary to Garcia-Chavira’s contention, the BIA used the proper “future- oriented” standard in determining that he failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Figueroa v. Mukasey, 543 F.3d 487, 497-98 (9th Cir. 2008) (agency must conduct a “future-oriented analysis” in determining whether “removal would result in an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to qualifying relatives (emphasis in original)). We otherwise lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary hardship determination. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir. 2012) (absent a colorable legal or constitutional claim, the court lacks jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary hardship determination).

Because the BIA conducted a de novo review of the hardship determination, we do not consider Garcia-Chavira’s challenges to the IJ’s hardship determination.

See Romero-Ruiz v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1057, 1061 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Where the BIA conducts an independent review of the IJ’s findings, we review the BIA’s decision and not that of the IJ.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

2 16-70508