Case ID: f-appx_84/html/0830-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Regino SALAZAR-MALDONADO; et al., Petitioners, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 02-71378.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 8, 2003.
    
    Decided Dec. 18, 2003.
    Jack S. Feltscher, Escondido, CA, for Petitioners.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, CAS-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, OIL, Ann Carroll Varnon, Esq., David Dauenheimer, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before GOODWIN, WALLACE, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Husband and wife Regino Salazar Maldonado and Lidia Griselda Quesada De Salazar, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) denial of their applications for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

Petitioners contend that the IJ abused his discretion and denied them due process by refusing to accept into evidence on the day of the hearing an expert’s report and testimony. Because this issue was not raised before the BIA, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Rashtabadi v. INS, 28 F.3d 1562, 1566 (9th Cir.1994).

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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     
      
      . Their son, Alexis Salazar, who was part of the proceedings below, is statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal because he lacks a qualifying relative. See 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(l)(D).