Case Name: Maria Dora Leticia RODRIGUEZ-OCHOA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-02-24
Citations: 366 F. App'x 846
Docket Number: No. 07-74868
Parties: Maria Dora Leticia RODRIGUEZ-OCHOA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 366
Pages: 846–847

Head Matter:
Maria Dora Leticia RODRIGUEZ-OCHOA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-74868.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
Filed Feb. 24, 2010.
James G. Roche, Esquire, Roche Law- firm LLC, Santa Ana, CA, for Petitioner.
Corey Leigh Farrell, OIL, Lisa Marie Arnold, Senior Litigation Counsel, Andrea Gevas, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, 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
Maria Dora Leticia Rodriguez-Ochoa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order denying her application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Rodriguez-Oehoa's contention regarding the BIA's review of factual findings because she failed to raise it in her second appeal to the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's discretionary determination that Rodriguez-Ochoa failed to establish the requisite hardship for cancellation of removal. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.