Case ID: f-appx_205/html/0520-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rodrigo Hernandez SANTOS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-71078.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 6, 2006.
    
    Filed Nov. 9, 2006.
    Elizabeth Torres, Foss and Torres, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    District Director, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Alison Marie Igoe, Esq., S. Nicole Nardone, Barry J. Pettinato, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    
      Before: LEAVY, GOULD, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rodrigo Hernandez Santos, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to consider Santos’s due process contentions regarding alleged notario fraud and regarding the BIA’s rejection of his motion to accept a late brief, because he did not make an ineffective assistance of counsel claim and did not exhaust these claims before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

We also lack jurisdiction to consider the agency’s determination that Santos failed to establish the requisite period of continuous physical presence because he did not exhaust. See id.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.