Case Name: Perpetua Ramiro PAGALLAMAN, also known as Petty Pagallaman, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-07
Citations: 396 F. App'x 996
Docket Number: No. 09-60488
Parties: Perpetua Ramiro PAGALLAMAN, also known as Petty Pagallaman, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 396
Pages: 996–996

Head Matter:
Perpetua Ramiro PAGALLAMAN, also known as Petty Pagallaman, Petitioner v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., U.S. Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 09-60488
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 7, 2010.
Zhijun Liu, Esq., American Law Groups, P.L.L.C., New York, NY, for Petitioner.
Craig Alan Newell, Jr., Trial Attorney, John Beadle Holt, Esq., Trial Attorney, Luis Enrique Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Perpetua Ramiro Pagallaman is a native and citizen of the Philippines. She petitions this court to review the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), dismissing her appeal from the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) that she is removable and not eligible for discretionary relief from removal. Pagallaman has waived any challenge to the IJ's determination that she is removable and not eligible for cancellation of removal by failing to challenge this determination in her petition for review. See Soadjede v. Ashcroft, 324 F.3d 830, 833 (5th Cir.2003). Further, this court lacks jurisdiction to review Pagalla-man's claims that her procedural due process rights were violated because she failed to present the claims to the BIA. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Roy v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 132, 137 (5th Cir.2004).
Accordingly, the petition for review is DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir R. 47.5.4.