Case Name: Samuel GALLEGOS-ROSALES, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-07-31
Citations: 194 F. App'x 449
Docket Number: No. 05-71786
Parties: Samuel GALLEGOS-ROSALES, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 194
Pages: 449–450

Head Matter:
Samuel GALLEGOS-ROSALES, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-71786.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Decided July 31, 2006.
Edward P. Sangster, Ramiz I. Rafeedie, Esq., Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Ann Carroll Varnon, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Samuel Gallegos-Rosales, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision de nying his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review for lack of jurisdiction.
We lack jurisdiction to review the contention that the IJ violated due process by not allowing a witness to testify because Gallegos-Rosales failed to raise this issue before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (noting that due process challenges that are "procedural in nature" must be exhausted).
We do not consider the challenge to the IJ's moral character finding because Gallegos-Rosales's failure to establish hardship is dispositive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.