8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II). Because Petitioner is removable by reason of having committed a controlled substance offense, we lack jurisdiction over the petition for review, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C). We further lack jurisdiction over the petition for review, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)®, because Petitioner challenges a discretionary decision — the denial of his application for cancellation of removal in the exercise of discretion. We lack jurisdiction to review a decision by the BIA denying an alien’s application for cancellation of removal in the exercise of discretion. Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir.2009). Petitioner has not set forth a colorable constitutional claim over which we otherwise could exercise jurisdiction. See id. (<HOLDING>). PETITION
holding that this is not a hybridrights case because plaintiffs demonstrated no colorable claim of infringement on the constitutional right holding that a judge did not act in clear absence of all jurisdiction where he had colorable authority to take the action in question holding that any challenge of an immigration judges discretionary determination must present a colorable claim in order for this court to exercise jurisdiction citing martinezrosas v gonzales 424 f3d 926 930 9th cir2005 holding that an appellate court must give deference to the trial judges determination of juror competency holding that similar argument did not raise a colorable question of law for purposes of jurisdiction