Case Name: Vicenta LOPEZ-BOBADILLA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-12
Citations: 386 F. App'x 735
Docket Number: No. 08-71090
Parties: Vicenta LOPEZ-BOBADILLA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 386
Pages: 735–735

Head Matter:
Vicenta LOPEZ-BOBADILLA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 08-71090.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 29, 2010.
Filed July 12, 2010.
Xavier Rosas, The Root Law Group, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
Edward C. Durant, Luis E. Perez, 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, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: ALARCÓN, LEAVY, and GRABER, 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
Vicenta Lopez-Bobadilla, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying her application for relief under the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act ("NACARA"). We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's determination that Lopez-Bobadilla was not eligible for NACARA relief because she failed to establish that she timely registered for ABC benefits, and she does not raise a legal or constitutional question that invokes our jurisdiction. See Lanuza v. Holder, 597 F.Bd 970, 972 (9th Cir.2010) (per curiam).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Lopez-Bobadilla's remaining contentions, because she failed to exhaust them before the BIA. 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 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.