Case ID: f-appx_252/html/0138-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose BARAJAS-CRUZ, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-76502.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 15, 2007.
    
    Filed Oct. 23, 2007.
    Molly C. Curtis, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    CAC-Distriet Counsel, Esq., 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, Terri J. Scadron, Esq., Jennifer Levings, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: KOZINSKI, TASHIMA and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Peter D. Keisler is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Acting Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

The IJ didn’t err by applying the valid “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard under 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(d). See Mejia v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 991, 993, 996 (9th Cir.2007). We lack jurisdiction to review the denial of a petition under this standard, see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(h), 1252(a)(2)(B), because such a denial is entirely within the agency’s discretion. See Mejia, 499 F.3d at 999. We also lack jurisdiction to determine whether petitioner’s 1994 deportation order was invalid, as he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1).

PETITION DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.