Case Name: Maria Guadalupe MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-25
Citations: 229 F. App'x 580
Docket Number: No. 05-75849
Parties: Maria Guadalupe MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 229
Pages: 580–581

Head Matter:
Maria Guadalupe MARTINEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-75849.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007 .
Filed April 25, 2007.
James Todd Bennett, Esq., El Cerrito, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Michelle E. Gorden Latour, Esq., P. Michael Truman, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: GRABER, CLIFTON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Maria Guadalupe Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing her appeal from the Immigration Judge's order denying her application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider any challenge to the agency's discretionary determination that Martinez failed to demonstrate exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 891-92 (9th Cir.2003) (interpreting jurisdictional bar of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)®).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Martinez's contentions regarding ineffective assistance of counsel because she failed to raise those claims before the BIA. See Liu v. Waters, 55 F.3d 421, 425-26 (9th Cir.1995) (petitioner is required to exhaust ineffective assistance of counsel claims in a motion to reopen before the BIA).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.