Albenis PITERS-ROSA, Petitioner v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF the UNITED STATES, Respondent, 491 F. App'x 350

OPINION OF THE COURT PER CURIAM. Albenis Pieters-Rosa is a citizen of the Netherlands who is removable for being present without valid entry documents. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). He applied for cancellation of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(

b) and other relief not now relevant. That application required him to show that his removal “would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to his qualifying relatives, in this case his United States citizen wife and children. 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D). The Immigration Judge, after hearing testimony and applying the standard set forth in In re Monreal-Aguinaga, 23 I. & N. Dec. 56, 2001 WL 534295 (BIA 2001), and In re Recinas, 23 I. & N.

Dec. 467, 2002 WL 31173154 (BIA 2002), concluded that Piet-ers-Rosa had not demonstrated the requisite hardship, denied his application, and ordered his removal to the Netherlands. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed, and Pieters-Rosa petitions for review. The Government has filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that we lack jurisdiction. We agree.

Pieters-Rosa’s sole argument on review is that the Agency erred in denying his cancellation application because “[t]he record shows that Petitioner did substantiate the hardship requirement^]” As the Government argues, we lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of cancellation of removal, including the Agency’s determination that a petitioner did not show sufficient hardship. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Patel v. Att’y Gen., 619 F.3d 230, 232 (3d Cir.2010). We retain jurisdiction in this context only to review colorable constitutional claims or questions of law.

See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D); Patel, 619 F.3d at 232. Pieters-Rosa has not raised any such claims or questions, colorable or otherwise. Instead, his sole argument is that he “met [his] burden of showing an exceptional hardship. We do not have jurisdiction to review this claim because it challenges a discretionary determination and does not present a constitutional question or a question of law.” Patel, 619 F.3d at 233. Thus, the Government’s motion is granted and the petition will be dismissed.