Case Name: Abelardo ABARCA-OCAMPO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-10
Citations: 177 F. App'x 542
Docket Number: No. 04-75187
Parties: Abelardo ABARCA-OCAMPO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 177
Pages: 542–543

Head Matter:
Abelardo ABARCA-OCAMPO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-75187.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2006.
Filed April 10, 2006.
Abelardo Abarca-Ocampo, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Mary Jane Candaux, Esq., Arthur L. Rabin, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Abelardo Abarca-Oeampo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") order denying him cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
Abarca-Ocampo's contention that the IJ denied his right to due process by failing to consider the length of time he has resided in the United States, is in effect a challenge to the IJ's hardship determination. We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ's discretionary determination that Abarca-Ocampo failed to demonstrate exceptional and extremely unusual hardship. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929-30 (9th Cir.2005).
To the extent Abarca-Ocampo challenges the IJ's interpretation of the hardship standard, we lack jurisdiction because Abarca-Ocampo failed to raise the challenge before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir.2004) (explaining that exhaustion is jurisdictional).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.