Case Name: Jose Felix Huerta CARRILLO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-25
Citations: 320 F. App'x 610
Docket Number: No. 07-71378
Parties: Jose Felix Huerta CARRILLO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 320
Pages: 610–611

Head Matter:
Jose Felix Huerta CARRILLO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-71378.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 18, 2009.
Filed March 25, 2009.
Shan D. Potts, Esquire, Law Offices of Larry W. Smith, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
OIL, Stacy Stiffel Paddack, Carlos J. Ruiz, Esquire, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, CAC-Distriet Counsel, Esquire, Office of The District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of The District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Jose Felix Huerta Carrillo, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order summarily affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's discretionary determination that Petitioner failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).
To the extent Petitioner contends that the IJ violated due process by failing to consider his evidence of hardship, we lack jurisdiction because Petitioner did not 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.'