Case ID: f-appx_135/html/0111-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Erasmo GARCIA CAMPOS, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-72503.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 14, 2005.
    
    Decided June 17, 2005.
    Erasmo Garcia Campos, Santa Maria, CA, pro se.
    CAC-District 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, Mary Jane Candaux, Esq., Stephen J. Flynn, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: KLEINFELD, TASHIMA and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       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.
    
    
      
       Alberto R. Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Erasmo Campos-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ summary affirmance without opinion of an immigration judge’s denial of his application for suspension of deportation. Petitioner contends that the IJ erred in holding that he failed to establish seven years of continuous physical presence in the United States, and erred in concluding that he failed to establish extreme hardship. We lack jurisdiction to review petitioner’s challenge regarding his continuous physical presence because he failed to exhaust this claim before the BIA. See Ochave v. INS, 254 F.3d 859, 867 (9th Cir.2001). We also lack jurisdiction to review the immigration judge’s discretionary determination that petitioner failed to establish extreme hardship. See Kalaw v. INS, 133 F.3d 1147, 1152 (9th Cir.1997).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 
      
       ^his panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).