Case Name: Isidro CHINO-CAMACHO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-05-01
Citations: 276 F. App'x 646
Docket Number: No. 05-75682
Parties: Isidro CHINO-CAMACHO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 276
Pages: 646–647

Head Matter:
Isidro CHINO-CAMACHO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-75682.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 22, 2008.
Filed May 1, 2008.
Nwabueze C.I. Ezeife, Samuel U. Nwobodo, Emeziem & Ogbu, LLP, Emeryville, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Carl H. Mcintyre, Jr., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Isidro Chino-Camacho, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") or der 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 Chino-Camacho's contention that the IJ violated his due process rights by not granting his motion to continue because Chino-Camacho failed to raise this issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (due process challenges that are "procedural in nature" must be exhausted).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.