Charles Harvey Mazariegos- Guillen 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
CHARLES HARVEY MAZARIEGOS-
GUILLEN,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 11-70630
Agency No. A070-925-363
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Charles Harvey Mazariegos-Guillen, a native and citizen of Guatemala,
petitions pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals
FILED
SEP 14 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-70630 2
denying his application for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed
by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We dismiss the petition for review.
Petitioner contends that his United States citizen child will experience the
requisite hardship if petitioner is returned to Guatemala, and therefore the BIA
erred in denying his application for cancellation of removal. Specifically,
petitioner contends that the immigration judge erred: by concluding that petitioner
would be able to find employment upon his return to Guatemala; by not giving
sufficient weight to the economic and financial hardship caused by the heart
condition of the mother of petitioner’s United States citizen child; and by not
properly considering the effect of the emotional and psychological hardship to the
child if petitioner is deported. Petitioner’s contentions challenge the agency’s
hardship determination, and we lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s
discretionary determination that petitioner failed to show exceptional and
extremely unusual hardship to his United States citizen child. See 8 U.S.C. §
1252(a)(2)(B); Mendez-Castro v. Mukasey, 552 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir. 2009).
We also lack jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel in the presentation of his application for cancellation of
removal and voluntary departure because he failed to exhaust this claim before the

-- 2 of 3 --

11-70630 3
BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

-- 3 of 3 --