Opinion
No. 04-76502.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed October 23, 2007.
Molly C. Curtis, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.
CAC-District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Terri J. Scadron, Esq., Jennifer Levings, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. Agency No. A71-641-538.
Before: KOZINSKI, TASHIMA and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The IJ didn't err by applying the valid "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship" standard under 8 C.F.R. § 212.7(d). See Mejia v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 991, 993, 996 (9th Cir. 2007). We lack jurisdiction to review the denial of a petition under this standard, see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(h), 1252(a)(2)(B), because such a denial is entirely within the agency's discretion. See Mejia, 499 F.3d at 999. We also lack jurisdiction to determine whether petitioner's 1994 deportation order was invalid, as he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1).