Case Name: Martin Jimenez HERRERA; Carmen Jimenez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-03
Citations: 321 F. App'x 618
Docket Number: No. 05-75119
Parties: Martin Jimenez HERRERA; Carmen Jimenez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 321
Pages: 618–619

Head Matter:
Martin Jimenez HERRERA; Carmen Jimenez, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-75119.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2009.
Filed April 3, 2009.
Edgardo Quintanilla, Esq., Edgardo Quintanilla Law Offices, Sherman Oaks, CA, for Petitioners.
CAC-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, Brendan Paul Hogan, Esquire, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Martin Jimenez Herrera and Carmen Jimenez, spouses and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying their appli cations for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
The BIA adopted the IJ's opinion, which concluded that administrative closure was not warranted in petitioners' case because of the governments opposition. We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's denial of petitioners' request for administrative closure. See Diaz-Covarrubias v. Mukasey, 551 F.3d 1114, 1120 (9th Cir.2009).
We also lack jurisdiction to review petitioners' due process claim because they failed to raise that issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (exhaustion is generally mandatory and jurisdictional).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provid ed by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.