Daniel Martinez-Hernandez 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
DANIEL MARTINEZ-HERNANDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-71999
Agency No. A097-365-540
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.
Daniel Martinez-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’(“BIA”) order dismissing his
appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his application for
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JT/Research 07-71999 2
cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review de novo constitutional claims, Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir.
2001), and we dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to consider any contention regarding the IJ’s
determination that Martinez-Hernandez failed to establish eligibility for
cancellation of removal, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b), because Martinez-Hernandez did not
challenge this determination before the BIA, see Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674,
678 (9th Cir. 2004).
Martinez-Hernandez’ equal protection claim is unpersuasive.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --