Case Name: Silviano RUIZ PEREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-28
Citations: 361 F. App'x 734
Docket Number: No. 06-74148
Parties: Silviano RUIZ PEREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 361
Pages: 734–734

Head Matter:
Silviano RUIZ PEREZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-74148.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
Filed Dec. 28, 2009.
Noam Mendelson, Mendelson & Associates, Daly City, CA, for Petitioner.
Ada Elsie Bosque, Lyle Davis Jentzer, Esquire, OIL, 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: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, 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
Silviano Ruiz Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") order denying his application for adjustment of status and waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i). We dismiss the petition for review.
We generally lack jurisdiction by statute to review the agency's discretionary decision to deny a waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1182®. See 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i)(2) ("No court shall have jurisdiction to review a decision on action of the Attorney General regarding a waiver under paragraph 1"). Ruiz Perez's due process challenge does not amount to a colorable constitutional claim that would invoke our jurisdiction. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).
We also lack jurisdiction to review Ruiz Perez's contention of IJ bias because he failed to raise that issue before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (explaining that this court lacks jurisdiction to review contentions not raised before the agency).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.