Case Name: Tomas LEAL-RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-04-12
Citations: 125 F. App'x 896
Docket Number: No. 04-70027; Agency No. A91-519-590
Parties: Tomas LEAL-RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 125
Pages: 896–897

Head Matter:
Tomas LEAL-RAMIREZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 04-70027.
Agency No. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 23, 2005.
Decided April 12, 2005.
Marshall G. Whitehead, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner.
Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, District Director, Immigration & Naturalization Service, Phoenix, AZ, William Campbell Erb, Jr., Attorney, Stephen J. Flynn, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before B. FLETCHER, TROTT, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Alberto R. Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
The panel unanimously finds this case suit able for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Tomas Leal-Ramirez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") affirming without opinion an immigration judge's ("IJ") denial of his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA's discretionary determination that Leal-Ramirez failed to demonstrate "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(I); Salvador-Calleros v. Ashcroft, 389 F.3d 959, 962 (9th Cir.2004).
Leal-Ramirez failed to exhaust his claims that the IJ violated his right to due process by applying incorrect legal standards for exceptional and extremely unusual hardship, and we therefore lack jurisdiction to consider these claims. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Sanchez-Cruz v. INS, 255 F.3d 775, 780 (9th Cir.2001).
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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.