qualifying relatives if they returned to Mexico with him or remained in the United States. As to [Petitioner’s son], the Immigration Judge found that special education was available in Mexico and that [Petitioner’s son’s] stutter, which was more pronounced in Spanish, would not amount to exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. As to [Petitioner’s son’s] grades, he did not perform well for the first quarter of 5th grade, but his grades improved over the course of 4th grade and the same may be true in 5th grade. BIA Op., A.R. 4. The BIA’s-decision not to grant Petitioner’s application for cancellation of removal does pot amount to a misapplication of the correct legal standard. Accordingly, this issue is without merit. See Gomez-Perez v. Holder, 569 F.3d 370 (6th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>) As a second argument that the BIA failed to
holding that a petitioners argument that the ij and the bia applied an incorrect legal standard by focusing on the present circumstances of the petitioners children rather than on the future hardships they would face upon his remov al raised a reviewable legal question but finding that the record established that the ij and the bia properly addressed those hardships holding that we will not review an issue or claim that was not presented to the bia in the petitioners notice of appeal or brief to the bia even if the bia considered the issue or claim sua sponte holding that the petitioners claim inter alia that the ij completely disregarded relevant hardships did not raise even a colorable constitutional claim or question of law because the petitioner merely attacked  the factual findings made and the balancing of factors engaged in by the ij holding that the denial of petitioners appeal to the bia would have put a reasonable person in the petitioners position on notice that something was wrong with his attorneys preparation for the removal hearing recognizing that the bia must defer to the factual findings of the ij unless they are clearly erroneous