Barajas-Cruz v. Keisler

MEMORANDUM *** The IJ didn’t err by applying the valid “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” standard under 8 C.F.R. § 212.7 (d). *139 See Mejia v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 991, 993, 996 (9th Cir.2007). We lack jurisdiction to review the denial of a petition under this standard, see 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182 (h), 1252(a)(2)(B), because such a denial is entirely within the agency’s discretion. See Mejia, 499 F.3d at 999 . We also lack jurisdiction to determine whether petitioner’s 1994 deportation order was invalid, as he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (d)(1). PETITION DENIED in part and DISMISSED in part. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.