Sanusi v. Gonzales, 445 F.3d 193, 201 (2d Cir.2006) (per curiam) (citing Matter of Coelho, 20 I. & N. Dec. 464, 473 (B.I.A.1992) (“[T]he Board ordinarily will not consider a discretionary grant of a motion to remand unless the moving party meets a ‘heavy burden’ and presents evidence of such a nature that the Board is satisfied that if proceedings before the immigration judge were reopened, with all the attendant delays, the new evidence offered would likely change the result in the case.”)). Accordingly, the BIA did not commit legal error, and we lack jurisdiction to examine the correctness of the BIA’s conclusion that the § 212(c) factors did not warrant a grant of discretionary relief. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i);De La Vega v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 141, 144, 146-47 (2d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); see also Wallace v. Gonzales, 463 F.3d 135,
holding that this court lacks jurisdiction to review the discretionary denial of cancellation of removal based on a lack of exceptional and extremely unusual hardship holding that the real id act gave us jurisdiction to review a criminal aliens petition for review of an order of removal raising a question of law holding that the real id act does not restore jurisdiction over discretionary determinations holding that this court lacks jurisdiction to review the bias discretionary determinations concerning whether to grant cancellation of removal and that sjection 106 of the real id act does not override the jurisdictiondenying provision of 8 usc  1252a2b unless the petitioner raises a constitutional claim   or question  of law within the meaning of 8 usc  1252a2d holding that the real id act leaves this court deprived of jurisdiction to review discretionary and factual determinations