
    Alberta BRAMBILA-MONTANO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 06-71914.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted April 22, 2008.
    
    Filed May 2, 2008.
    Frank P. Sprouls, Esq., Law Office of Ricci and Sprouls, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Joan E. Smiley, Esq., Thomas Fatouros, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: GRABER, FISHER, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Alberta Brambila-Montano, 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 order denying her application for cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2) (“Special rule for battered spouse or child”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252, and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Brambila-Montano does not challenge the agency’s dispositive good moral character determination and has therefore failed to establish eligibility for cancellation of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(2)(A); Lopez-Umanzor v. Gonzales, 405 F.3d 1049, 1053 (9th Cir.2005). We therefore do not reach Brambila-Montano’s contentions concerning the agency’s extreme cruelty determination.

We lack jurisdiction to review Brambila-Montano’s procedural due process contention because she did not exhaust this argument before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (the court lacks jurisdiction to review procedural process claims not raised during administrative proceedings).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     