of police reports and arrest records that did not result in convictions. See Schroeck v. Gonzales, 429 F.3d 947, 951 (10th Cir.2005) (reviewing due process claim regarding agency’s consideration of conduct not resulting in conviction as factor in denial of § 1182(h) relief). But we dismiss Mr. Umoh’s petition for review with respect to the remainder of his issues, which do not raise either constitutional claims or questions of law. His primary contention is that the BIA’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence. He asserts more specifically that the BIA ignored evidence regarding his value to the community and erred in concluding that he did not take responsibility for his criminal convictions. Although he characterizes these as , 437 F.3d 238, 243 (2d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); Mehilli v. Gonzales, 433 F.3d 86, 94 (1st
holding no jurisdiction to review ijs discretionary denial of waiver of inadmissibility despite petitioners cloaking an abuse of discretion argument in constitutional garb holding that the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion holding that we lack jurisdiction to review a denial of adjustment of status as a discretionary matter holding denial of continuance to be an abuse of discretion holding that there was no abuse of discretion in the ijs denial of petitioners motions for continuances to await decisions on their pending requests for labor certifications