Berumen-Correa v. Holder , 402 F. App'x 318 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 02 2010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 DOLORES BERUMEN-CORREA, No. 06-70821
Petitioner, Agency No. A090-181-647
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted October 19, 2010 **
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Jose Dolores Berumen-Correa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for
review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an
immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by
8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo constitutional claims, Khan v. Holder, 584
*
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).
F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 2009), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition
for review.
Berumen-Correa’s equal protection and due process retroactivity challenges
to the IJ’s denial of section 212(c) relief are foreclosed by Abebe v. Mukasey, 554
F.3d 1203, 1207, 1208 n.7 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Berumen-Correa’s remaining contentions
because he failed to exhaust them before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358
F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004); Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir. 2004)
(the exhaustion requirement applies to “streamlined” cases).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, DISMISSED in part.
2 06-70821