Case ID: f-appx_321/html/0618-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Martin Jimenez HERRERA; Carmen Jimenez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-75119.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 18, 2009.
    
    Filed April 3, 2009.
    Edgardo Quintanilla, Esq., Edgardo Quintanilla Law Offices, Sherman Oaks, CA, for Petitioners.
    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, Brendan Paul Hogan, Esquire, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Martin Jimenez Herrera and Carmen Jimenez, spouses and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying their applications for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

The BIA adopted the IJ’s opinion, which concluded that administrative closure was not warranted in petitioners’ case because of the governments opposition. We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s denial of petitioners’ request for administrative closure. See Diaz-Covarrubias v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 1114, 1120 (9th Cir.2009).

We also lack jurisdiction to review petitioners’ due process claim because they failed to raise that issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (exhaustion is generally mandatory and jurisdictional).

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