Case Name: Rosa Arzate MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-26
Citations: 191 F. App'x 619
Docket Number: No. 04-75611
Parties: Rosa Arzate MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 191
Pages: 619–620

Head Matter:
Rosa Arzate MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-75611.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Filed July 26, 2006.
Rosa Arzate Martinez, Santa Ana, CA, pro se.
CAC-Distriet 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, Mark C. Walters, Esq., Anh-Thu P. Mai, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Rosa Arzate de Nieves, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the denial of the Board of Immigration Appeals' summary affirmance of an immigration judge's denial of her application for cancellation of removal for failure to satisfy the continuous physical presence requirement of 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(A).
Petitioner contends that the IJ erred in concluding that she did not establish ten years of continuous physical presence. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) "mandates exhaustion and therefore generally bars us, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, from reaching the merits of a legal claim not presented in administrative proceedings below." Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004). We lack jurisdiction, because petitioner failed to raise her claim either in her notice of appeal or in her brief to the BIA, and therefore, she has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. Id.
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.