Case Name: Claudia Isabel RUIZ-BARAJAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-24
Citations: 396 F. App'x 449
Docket Number: No. 08-71538
Parties: Claudia Isabel RUIZ-BARAJAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 396
Pages: 449–449

Head Matter:
Claudia Isabel RUIZ-BARAJAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-71538.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
Filed Sept. 24, 2010.
Martin Avila Robles, Immigration Practice Group a Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
OIL, Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel, John Clifford Cunningham, I, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ-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: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, 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
Claudia Isabel Ruiz-Barajas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying her application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's discretionary determination that Ruiz-Barajas 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).
Ruiz-Barajas' contentions that the agency disregarded her evidence of hardship and did not consider the evidence in the aggregate are not supported by the record and do not amount to colorable constitutional claims. See id. at 930.
We lack jurisdiction to review Ruiz-Ba-rajas' contentions that the IJ applied an improper legal standard and used an improper factor in the hardship analysis because she failed to exhaust those claims before the BIA. See Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS, 213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir.2000).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.