
    Bonifacio SALADO BELLO, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 09-71411.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2011.
    
    Filed March 25, 2011.
    David Neumeister, Judith Seeds Miller, Law Office of David Neumeister, Bakersfield, CA, for Petitioner.
    Jennifer R. Khouri, Kristin A. Moresi, Trial, OIL, Russell John Verby, Trial, 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: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Bonifacio Salado Bello, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s conclusion on discretionary grounds that Salado Bello lacks good moral character. See Bazua-Cota v. Gonzales, 466 F.3d 747, 749 (9th Cir.2006) (abuse of discretion challenges to discretionary decisions, even if recast as due process claims, do not constitute colorable constitutional claims).

We also lack jurisdiction to consider Salado Bello’s contentions that the agency denied him due process by failing to consider his positive equities and by not allowing his son to testify, because he failed to raise those issues before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004); Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1208 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc) (when a petitioner files a brief before the BIA, the petitioner will “be deemed to have exhausted only those issues he raised and argued in his brief before the BIA”).

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