Alejandro Conejo Aguirre; 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALEJANDRO CONEJO AGUIRRE; et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74625
Agency Nos. A095-814-466
A095-816-348
A095-816-349
A095-816-350
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Alejandro Conejo Aguirre, Maria Elena Conejo, husband and wife and their
sons, Jesus Conejo Ramos and Alejandro Guadalupe Conejo Ramos, natives and
citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals
FILED
JUN 04 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s denial of their
application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s discretionary determination that
petitioner parents, Alejandro Sr. and Maria, failed to show exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship to the U.S. citizen children. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B);
Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir. 2009). We lack
jurisdiction to consider the contention of petitioner sons, Jesus and Alejandro Jr.,
that they had no qualifying relative, because they did not exhaust this claim before
the Board. See Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS, 123 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir. 2000)
(declining to consider a claim that Board did not have first opportunity to
consider).
Petitioners’ contention that the immigration judge violated their right to a
fair hearing because she did not state on the record that she had reviewed and
familiarized herself with the record in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 1240.1(b) does
not raise a colorable due process claim. Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d
926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --