With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: 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
B: holding that this is not a hybridrights case because plaintiffs demonstrated no colorable claim of infringement on the constitutional right
C: holding that a judge did not act in clear absence of all jurisdiction where he had colorable authority to take the action in question
D: holding that an appellate court must give deference to the trial judges determination of juror competency
A.