Case Name: Luis Genaro Gandara REYES; Maria Villegas, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-09-06
Citations: 449 F. App'x 603
Docket Number: No. 07-71539
Parties: Luis Genaro Gandara REYES; Maria Villegas, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 449
Pages: 603–604

Head Matter:
Luis Genaro Gandara REYES; Maria Villegas, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 07-71539.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 1, 2011.
Filed Sept. 6, 2011.
Stacy Tolchin, Law Offices of Stacy Tol-chin, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
Stephen Elliott, Esquire, OIL, Emily Anne Radford, Kiley L. Kane, Esquire, Trial, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, 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
Luis Genaro Gandara Reyes and Maria Villegas, natives and citizens of Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals summary affirmance of an immigration judge's order denying their applications for cancellation of removal. Petitioners contend that the agency erred in ruling that they failed to meet their burden of establishing exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to their United States citizen daughter because the decision was based in part on the erroneous finding that Villegas would be able to return imminently to the United States as the immediate relative of a citizen. Because petitioners did not exhaust this claim before the BIA, we dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).
DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.