Case Name: Carlos Enrique PORRES-SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-01-23
Citations: 552 F. App'x 755
Docket Number: No. 12-72198
Parties: Carlos Enrique PORRES-SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 552
Pages: 755–756

Head Matter:
Carlos Enrique PORRES-SANCHEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-72198.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 21, 2014.
Filed Jan. 23, 2014.
Christopher John Stender, Esquire, Federal Immigration Counselors, AZ, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
OIL, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Lauren Fascett, Lindsay Williams Zimliki, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of The Chief Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and PAEZ, 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
Carlos Enrique Porres-Sanchez, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying his motion to reopen. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Porres-Sanchez's challenge to the BIA's disposi-tive determination that Porres-Sanchez failed to show the requisite hardship to his qualifying relatives because Porres-San-chez failed to exhaust this challenge in his motion to reopen before the BIA. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir.2010).
We need not address Porres-Sanchez's remaining contention regarding continuous physical presence because the agency's hardship determination is dispositive. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.