Alejandro Aguirre v. Eric H. Holder Jr. , 381 F. App'x 740 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 04 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALEJANDRO CONEJO AGUIRRE; et al., No. 08-74625
Petitioners, Agency Nos. A095-814-466
A095-816-348
v. A095-816-349
A095-816-350
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent. 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
*
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).
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