Case Name: Francisco Huertas VILLA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-03
Citations: 298 F. App'x 607
Docket Number: No. 06-72209
Parties: Francisco Huertas VILLA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 298
Pages: 607–607

Head Matter:
Francisco Huertas VILLA, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-72209.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 28, 2008.
Filed Nov. 3, 2008.
Sung U. Park, Esquire, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Stuart S. Nickum, Esquire, Oil, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Francisco Huertas Villa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's order denying his application for cancellation of removal and his motion to continue proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's discretionary determination that Villa 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).
We lack jurisdiction to review Villa's motion to continue proceedings to supplement the record with a report from a medical expert because he did not exhaust this claim before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir. 2004).
Villa's contention that the hardship standard is unconstitutional is unpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.