Case Name: Ernesto Bayle DE VEGA, a.k.a. Ernesto Bayle Vega, a.k.a. Ernie Devega, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-13
Citations: 454 F. App'x 544
Docket Number: No. 10-73116
Parties: Ernesto Bayle DE VEGA, a.k.a. Ernesto Bayle Vega, a.k.a. Ernie Devega, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 454
Pages: 544–545

Head Matter:
Ernesto Bayle DE VEGA, a.k.a. Ernesto Bayle Vega, a.k.a. Ernie Devega, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 10-73116.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
Filed Oct. 13, 2011.
Ernesto Bayle De Vega, Abra, Philippines, pro se.
Lauren Fascett, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Ernesto Bayle De Vega, a native and citizen of the Philippines, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") removal order. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's discretionary denial of De Vega's cancellation of removal application because De Vega has not raised a colorable constitutional or legal challenge to that determination. See Bermudez v. Holder, 586 F.3d 1167, 1169 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam). In light of our disposition, we need not reach De Vega's contentions regarding his statutory eligibility for cancellation of removal.
We also lack jurisdiction to review De Vega's contention that the IJ violated due process by not granting him a continuance because he failed to exhaust it before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.