Opinion
No. 06-70349.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed November 26, 2007.
Susan E. Hill, Esq., Hill Piibe, 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, David V. Bernal, Attorney, Ernesto H. Molina, Jr., 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. A93-222-028.
Before: TROTT, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Juan Leon-Garcia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order affirming an immigration judge's ("IJ") order denying his application for cancellation of removal. To the extent we have jurisdiction, it is conferred by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration proceedings. See Ram v. INS, 243 F.3d 510, 516 (9th Cir. 2001). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's discretionary determination that Leon-Garcia failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 890 (9th Cir. 2003). Leon-Garcia's contention that the BIA violated his due process rights by misconstruing the facts of his case does not amount to a colorable constitutional claim. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005) ("traditional abuse of discretion challenges recast as alleged due process violations do not constitute colorable constitutional claims that would invoke our jurisdiction.").
Leon-Garcia's remaining due process contentions are unavailing, as the proceedings were not "so fundamentally unfair that [he] was prevented from reasonably presenting [his] case." Colmenar v. INS, 210 F.3d 967, 971 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).
We lack jurisdiction to review Leon-Garcia's contention that the IJ should have granted a continuance sua sponte because he failed to raise that issue before the BIA and thereby failed to exhaust his 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).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.