Ruiz-Barajas v. Holder

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RUIZ-BARAJAS v. HOLDER

Claudia Isabel RUIZ-BARAJAS, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 08-71538

2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 19862

Submitted September 13, 2010. -- September 24, 2010

NOTICE:

PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Marie Kayal, Immigration Practice Group, A Professional Corporation, San Francisco, CA for the petitioner. OIL, Luis E. Perez, Senior Litigation Counsel, Don George Scroggin, Esquire, Trial Attorney, John Clifford Cunningham, I, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, DOJ - U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC; Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA for the respondent.

OPINION

MEMORANDUM*

Claudia Isabel Ruiz-Barajas, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing her appeal from an immigration judge's ("IJ") decision denying her application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency's discretionary determination that Ruiz-Barajas failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir. 2005).

Ruiz-Barajas' contentions that the agency disregarded her evidence of hardship and did not consider the evidence in the aggregate are not supported by the record and do not amount to colorable constitutional claims. See id. at 930.

We lack jurisdiction to review Ruiz-Barajas' contentions that the IJ applied an improper legal standard and used an improper factor in the hardship analysis because she failed to exhaust those claims before the BIA. See Ontiveros-Lopez v. INS, 213 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir. 2000).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.

*This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.