Alma Adelina Gutierrez Valle; 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).
jlf/Inventory
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALMA ADELINA GUTIERREZ VALLE;
et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74149
Agency Nos. A099-070-804
A099-070-805
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.
Alma Adelina Gutierrez Valle and her daughter Kelly A. Carrillo Gutierrez,
natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the decision of the
FILED
JAN 11 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

jlf/Inventory 08-74149 2
Board of Immigration Appeals summarily affirming the immigration judge’s denial
of petitioners’ application for cancellation of removal.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
Gutierrez Valle failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to her
United States citizen son. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th
Cir. 2005). We also lack jurisdiction to review Gutierrez Valle’s claim that
conditions have changed in Mexico due to increased drug violence and swine flu
health concerns because petitioner failed to exhaust the issue before the agency.
See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004). Gutierrez Valle’s
contention that her removal would violate the due process rights of her United
States citizen son by resulting in the de facto removal of her son is foreclosed. See
Urbano de Malaluan v. INS, 577 F.2d 589, 594 (9th Cir. 1978). Finally, we
uphold the agency’s determination that Carrillo Gutierrez lacked a qualifying
relative, and was statutorily ineligible for cancellation relief. See 8 U.S.C. §
1229b(b)(1).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED IN PART; DENIED IN PART.

-- 2 of 2 --