Rodriguez Villalvazo v. Holder , 367 F. App'x 783 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FEB 23 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    JOSE ABRAHAM RODRIGUEZ                            No. 07-74317
    VILLALVAZO; VERONICA LIZBETH
    RODRIGUEZ VILLALVAZO; LAURA                       Agency Nos. A075-503-575
    ESTELA RODRIGUEZ VILLALVAZO,                                  A075-503-574
    A075-503-573
    Petitioners,
    v.                                              MEMORANDUM *
    ERIC H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General,
    Respondent.
    On Petition for Review of an Order of the
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Submitted February 16, 2010 **
    Before:        FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    Jose Abraham Rodriguez Villalvazo, Veronica Lizbeth Rodriguez
    Villalvazo, and Laura Estela Rodriguez Villalvazo, natives and citizens of Mexico,
    *
    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).
    LR/Research
    petition pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
    dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying their
    applications for cancellation of removal. Our jurisdiction is governed by 
    8 U.S.C. § 1252
    . We review de novo claims of constitutional violations in immigration
    proceedings, see Iturribarria v. INS, 
    321 F.3d 889
    , 894 (9th Cir. 2003), and we
    dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.
    We lack jurisdiction to review petitioners’ contention that their mother’s
    satisfaction of the continuous physical presence requirement should have been
    imputed to them, because they failed to raise that issue before the BIA and thereby
    failed to exhaust their 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).
    Petitioners’ contention that the agency’s application of the ten-year
    continuous physical presence requirement violated their due process rights is
    unavailing. See Padilla-Padilla v. Gonzales, 
    463 F.3d 972
    , 978-79 (9th Cir. 2006).
    PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.
    LR/Research                                2                                    07-74317