Case Name: Jose Abel GAMEZ-PEREZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-20
Citations: 654 F. App'x 303
Docket Number: No. 15-71141
Parties: Jose Abel GAMEZ-PEREZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 654
Pages: 303–304

Head Matter:
Jose Abel GAMEZ-PEREZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 15-71141
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 14, 2016
FILED June 20, 2016
Michael Bruce Anderson, Attorney, Michael Anderson, Mendocino, CA, for Petitioner.
Mona Maria Yousif, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, 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
Jose Abel Gamez-Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("U") decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider Gamez-Perez's unexhausted contentions that the IJ erred and violated due process by relying on his criminal history in the hardship analysis. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (we lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien's administrative proceedings before the BIA).
Accordingly, Gamez-Perez's contention that the BIA erred in failing to address these claims is without merit, where he failed to raise them to the BIA.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.