Case Name: Luis Manuel Reyes ARELLANO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-28
Citations: 194 F. App'x 434
Docket Number: No. 05-71341
Parties: Luis Manuel Reyes ARELLANO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 194
Pages: 434–435

Head Matter:
Luis Manuel Reyes ARELLANO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-71341.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Decided July 28, 2006.
Phyllis A. Beech, Beech Law Firm, Fresno, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Paul Harrison, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Environmental & Natural Resources, Janice K. Redfern, Esq., DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Luis Manuel Reyes Arellano, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order affirming an immigration judge's ("U") decision denying his application for cancellation of removal and denying a continuance. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Reyes Arellano's contention that the I J's denial of a continuance deprived him of due process 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) (noting that due process challenges that are "procedural in nature" must be exhausted).
Reyes Arellano's motion for submission of the case without oral argument is denied as moot.
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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.