Case ID: f-appx_418/html/0671-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jose Guadalupe MENDOZA-MARIN, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-70826.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed March 7, 2011.
    Maziar Razi, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
    James Arthur Hunolt, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, Emily Anne Radford, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Guadalupe Mendoza-Marin, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that Mendoza-Marin failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005). Mendoza-Marin’s contention that the agency applied an incorrect legal standard in making its hardship determination is not supported by the record and does not amount to a colorable legal or constitutional claim. See Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 980 (9th Cir.2009).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Mendoza-Márin’s contention that the IJ abused her discretion by failing to grant a continuance because he failed to exhaust that issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

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