NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 11 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OSCAR ARMANDO RAMIREZ-GARCIA, No. 18-70911 AKA Olegario Garcia-Ramirez, Agency No. A200-974-565 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted May 6, 2020** Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Oscar Armando Ramirez-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his ap- peal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his applications for cancella- tion of removal and voluntary departure. 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). including claims of due process violations. Padilla-Martinez v. Holder, 770 F.3d 825, 830 (9th Cir. 2014). We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s decision denying cancellation of removal and voluntary departure as a matter of discretion and its discretionary de- termination that Ramirez-Garcia did not show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his U.S. citizen child, where Ramirez-Garcia does not present a colora- ble legal or constitutional claim. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i), (a)(2)(D); 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 determination regarding hardship).

Ramirez-Garcia’s contentions that the agency erred or violated due process because it did not properly weigh or consider evidence, or did not adequately ex- plain its decision, are not colorable. See Vilchiz-Soto, 688 F.3d at 644 (“traditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not pre- sent sufficiently colorable constitutional questions as to give this court jurisdic- tion”); Najmabadi v. Holder, 597 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 2010) (“What is required is merely that [the agency] consider the issues raised, and announce its decision in terms sufficient to enable a reviewing court to perceive that it has heard and thought and not merely reacted.” (citation omitted)).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

2 18-70911