Case Name: Jose Dolores BERUMEN-CORREA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-11-02
Citations: 402 F. App'x 318
Docket Number: No. 06-70821
Parties: Jose Dolores BERUMEN-CORREA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 402
Pages: 318–318

Head Matter:
Jose Dolores BERUMEN-CORREA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-70821.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 19, 2010.
Filed Nov. 2, 2010.
Jaime Jasso, California Alien Rights Project, LLC, Westlake Village, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Cindy S. Ferrier, Michelle E. Gorden Latour, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, 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
Jose Dolores Berumen-Correa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional claims, Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
Berumen-Correa's equal protection and due process retroactivity challenges to the IJ's denial of section 212(c) relief are foreclosed by Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1207, 1208 n. 7 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Beru-men-Correa's remaining contentions because he failed to exhaust them before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004); Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir.2004) (the exhaustion requirement applies to "streamlined" cases).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.