Case Name: Santiago Telles ARZOLA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-19
Citations: 235 F. App'x 438
Docket Number: No. 05-71046
Parties: Santiago Telles ARZOLA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, THOMAS and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 438–439

Head Matter:
Santiago Telles ARZOLA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-71046.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 9, 2007 .
Filed July 19, 2007.
Santiago Telles Arzola, Santa Maria, CA, pro se.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the . District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Daniel E. Goldman, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: LEAVY, THOMAS and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Santiago Telles Arzola, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals upholding an immigration judge's order denying Arzola's application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the discretionary determination that an applicant has failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative, see Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir.2003). We lack jurisdiction to review Arzola's contention that he was denied his right to counsel 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) (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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.