
    Juan FIGUEROA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-74050.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted April 13, 2010.
    Filed April 29, 2010.
    Juan Figueroa, Terra Bella, CA, pro se.
    Cesar Rodrigo Ternieden, Esquire, Law Office of Cesar R. Ternieden, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.
    Michelle Gorden Latour, Esquire, Assistant Director, Oil, Michele Yvette Frances Sarko, Esquire, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: KLEINFELD, TASHIMA, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER

Petitioner seeks review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) affirming an immigration judge’s (“U”) denial of relief under former § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed 1996). The IJ denied § 212(c) relief because petitioner failed to meet the requirement “that the alien warrants relief as a matter of discretion.” We lack jurisdiction, however, because “[d]is-eretionary decisions, including whether or not to grant § 212(c) relief, are not reviewable.” Vargas-Hernandez v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 919, 923 (9th Cir.2007) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii)). Petitioner’s attempt to attack the IJ’s adverse credibility finding under the guise of a due process attack also fails. See Torres-Aguilar v. INS, 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.2001) (“a petitioner may not create the jurisdiction that Congress chose to remove simply by cloaking an abuse of discretion argument in constitutional garb”).

We are also barred from reviewing petitioner’s remaining arguments because petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to those claims before the BIA. See Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1208 (9th Cir.2009); Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

For the above stated reasons, this petition for review is DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     