Roberto Jimenez-Huerta v. ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
JT/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERTO JIMENEZ-HUERTA,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-72635
Agency No. A076-665-976
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Roberto Jimenez-Huerta, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review
of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JT/Research 06-72635 2
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of
removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Jimenez-Huerta 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). We need not reach Jimenez-Huerta’s challenge to the IJ’s continuous
physical presence determination because the agency’s hardship determination is
dispositive. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(1).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Jimenez-Huerta’s due process challenge
because he failed to exhaust it before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d
674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Jimenez-Huerta’s claim that the BIA
improperly denied his request for voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(f);
Kalilu v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 1215, 1217 n.1 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --