Jose Abraham Rodriguez Villalvazo 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).
LR/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSE ABRAHAM RODRIGUEZ
VILLALVAZO; VERONICA LIZBETH
RODRIGUEZ VILLALVAZO; LAURA
ESTELA RODRIGUEZ VILLALVAZO,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 07-74317
Agency Nos. A075-503-575
A075-503-574
A075-503-573
MEMORANDUM *
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jose Abraham Rodriguez Villalvazo, Veronica Lizbeth Rodriguez
Villalvazo, and Laura Estela Rodriguez Villalvazo, natives and citizens of Mexico,
FILED
FEB 23 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

LR/Research 07-74317 2
petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
applications for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C.
§ 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration
proceedings, see Iturribarria v. INS, 321 F.3d 889, 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we
dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review petitioners’ contention that their mother’s
satisfaction of the continuous physical presence requirement should have been
imputed to them, because they failed to raise that issue before the BIA and thereby
failed to exhaust their 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).
Petitioners’ contention that the agency’s application of the ten-year
continuous physical presence requirement violated their due process rights is
unavailing. See Padilla-Padilla v. Gonzales, 463 F.3d 972, 978-79 (9th Cir. 2006).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --