
    Jose Abraham Rodriguez VILLALVAZO; Veronica Lizbeth Rodriguez Villalvazo; Laura Estela Rodriguez Villalvazo, Petitioners, v. Eric H. HOLDER Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 07-74317.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed Feb. 23, 2010.
    Jose Abraham Rodriguez Villalvazo, Baldwin Park, CA, pro se.
    Bob Platt, Esquire, Law Office of Bob Platt, Granada Hills, CA, for Petitioner Veronica Lizbeth Rodriguez Villalvazo.
    Veronica Lizbeth Rodriguez Villalvazo, Fontana, CA, pro se.
    Laura Estela Rodriguez Villalvazo, Baldwin Park, CA, pro se.
    Kevin James Conway, Esquire, Richard M. Evans, Esquire, Assistant Director, Brooke Maurer, OIL, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jose Abraham Rodriguez Villalvazo, Veronica Lizbeth Rodriguez Villalvazo, and Laura Estela Rodriguez Villalvazo, natives and citizens of Mexico, 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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     