Case Name: Salvador GARCIA-TORRES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-27
Citations: 393 F. App'x 496
Docket Number: No. 08-71932
Parties: Salvador GARCIA-TORRES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 393
Pages: 496–497

Head Matter:
Salvador GARCIA-TORRES, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-71932.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 10, 2010.
Filed Aug. 27, 2010.
Salvador Garcia-Torres, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Oil, Matthew Allan Spurlock, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAS-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, HAWKINS, and IKUTA, 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
Salvador Garcia-Torres, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction over the agency's discretionary determination that Garcia-Torres failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).
Garcia-Torres' contention that the agency deprived him of due process by misapplying the law to the facts of his case does not state a colorable due process claim. See id.
We lack jurisdiction to review Garcia-Torres' contentions regarding asylum and additional grounds of hardship not consid ered by the agency because he failed to raise those arguments before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.