Case Name: Jose OJEDA-VAZQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-05-26
Citations: 325 F. App'x 623
Docket Number: No. 06-72862
Parties: Jose OJEDA-VAZQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 325
Pages: 623–624

Head Matter:
Jose OJEDA-VAZQUEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-72862.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 12, 2009.
Filed May 26, 2009.
Mario Acosta, Jr., Esquire, Elsa Ines Martinez, Esquire, Martinez Goldsby & Associates, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-District Counsel, Esquire, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, Susan Houser, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. LeFevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: PREGERSON, CANBY, and BERZON, 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 Ojeda-Vazquez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immi gration judge's ("IJ") decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
Contrary to Ojeda-Vazquez's contention, the IJ concluded that Ojeda-Vazquez lacks good moral character as a matter of discretion. We lack jurisdiction to consider his challenge to that determination. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); see also Moran v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir.2005).
We also lack jurisdiction to consider Ojeda-Vazquez's contention that the IJ made an improper credibility determination because he did not raise it before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (generally requiring exhaustion of claims 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.