Case Name: Magdaleno LUNA-VARGAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-04-19
Citations: 376 F. App'x 764
Docket Number: No. 07-74281
Parties: Magdaleno LUNA-VARGAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 376
Pages: 764–764

Head Matter:
Magdaleno LUNA-VARGAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-74281.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 5, 2010.
Filed April 19, 2010.
Michael Franquinha, Esquire, Aguirre Law Group LLP, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
Terri Jane Scadron, Assistant Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAS-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, 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
Magdaleno Luna-Vargas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his application for cancellation of removal for legal permanent residents. We dismiss the petition for review.
Luna-Vargas' sole contention is that the IJ violated due process because his adverse credibility determination relied in part on a statement from a smuggled alien who was not present to testify. We lack jurisdiction to review this contention because Luna-Vargas failed to raise it before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004); see also Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 930 (9th Cir.2004) ("A petitioner cannot satisfy the exhaustion requirement by making a general challenge to the IJ's decision, but, rather, must specify which issues form the basis of the appeal.").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.