Silviano Ruiz Perez 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 concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
RB/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SILVIANO RUIZ PEREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 06-74148
Agency No. A079-586-741
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Silviano Ruiz Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of
the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an
FILED
DEC 28 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

RB/Research 06-74148 2
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his application for adjustment of status
and waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i). We dismiss the petition for review.
We generally lack jurisdiction by statute to review the agency’s
discretionary decision to deny a waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(i). See 8
U.S.C. § 1182(i)(2) (“No court shall have jurisdiction to review a decision on
action of the Attorney General regarding a waiver under paragraph 1”). Ruiz
Perez’s due process challenge does not amount to a colorable constitutional claim
that would invoke our jurisdiction. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926,
930 (9th Cir. 2005).
We also lack jurisdiction to review Ruiz Perez’s contention of IJ bias
because he failed to raise that issue before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust
his administrative remedies. 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.

-- 2 of 2 --