Case Name: Camilo HERNANDEZ-REAL, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-23
Citations: 252 F. App'x 151
Docket Number: No. 06-71157
Parties: Camilo HERNANDEZ-REAL, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, TASHIMA and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 252
Pages: 151–152

Head Matter:
Camilo HERNANDEZ-REAL, Petitioner, v. Peter D. KEISLER, Acting Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 06-71157.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 15, 2007.
Filed Oct. 23, 2007.
Jaime Jasso, Esq., California Alien Bights Project, LLC, Immigration Appealsworks, Westlake Village, CA, for Petitioner.
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, Janice K. Redfern, Esq., Leslie McKay, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: KOZINSKI, TASHIMA and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Peter D. Keisler is substituted for his predecessor, Alberto R. Gonzales, as Acting Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
1. The IJ didn't err by applying the valid "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" standard under 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(d). See Mejia v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 991, 993, 996 (9th Cir.2007). We have rejected petitioner's argument that 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(d) cannot be applied retroactively. See Mejia, 499 F.3d at 997.
2. We lack jurisdiction to review the denial of a petition under this standard, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B), because such a denial is entirely within the agency's discretion. See Mejia, 499 F.3d at 999. Petitioner also failed to exhaust his administrative remedies for obtaining a waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h)(1)(A), see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.3(b), so we lack jurisdiction to review this claim. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1).
PETITION DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.