
    Walter Danilo CABRERA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 14-72626
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 13, 2016 
    
    FILED September 21, 2016
    Walter Danilo Cabrera, Pro Se.
    Kate Deboer Balaban, Esquire, Trial Attorney, OIL, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    
      Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges,
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Walter Danilo Cabrera, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for special rule cancellation of removal under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (“NACARA”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The BIA properly determined that Cabrera is subject to the heightened hardship standard under NACARA due to his conviction. 8 C.F.R. § 1240.66(c). To the extent that Cabrera challenges the BIA’s discretionary determination that he failed to establish the hardship required to qualify for relief under NACARA, we lack jurisdiction. See Ixcot v. Holder, 646 F.3d 1202, 1213-14 (9th Cir. 2011) (the statute expressly precludes the court from reviewing the agency’s eligibility determination for NACARA special rule cancellation of removal). In light of our disposition, we do not reach Cabrera’s remaining contentions regarding his credibility and eligibility for NACARA. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (the court need not reach a contention when another dispositive determination has been made).

We lack jurisdiction to review Cabrera’s unexhausted contention that he was denied a full and fair hearing. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (procedural due' process claims must be exhausted).

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,
     