
    Jose Barba GONZALEZ, a.k.a. Jose Eric Barba, a.k.a. Jose Barba-gonzalez, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-70695.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 10, 2012.
    
    Filed Sept. 17, 2012.
    Howard James McClure, Esquire, Howard J. McClure, Esq., Oxnard, CA, for Petitioner.
    Suzanne Nardone, Oil, Nancy Naseem Safavi, Trial, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel Ice, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
    Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. 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 Barba Gonzalez, 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, and denying his motion to remand. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to remand. Movsisian v. Ashcroft, 395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir.2005). We dismiss in part and deny in part the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that Barba failed to show exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a qualifying relative. See Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 930 (9th Cir.2005).

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Barba’s motion to remand for failure to demonstrate that the evidence submitted would likely change the result in the case. See Young Sun Shin v. Mukasey, 547 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir.2008) (“Aliens who seek to remand or reopen proceedings to pursue relief bear a heavy burden of proving that, if proceedings were reopened, the new evidence would likely change the result in the ease.” (internal quotations omitted)).

We lack jurisdiction to address Barba’s unexhausted contention regarding a continuance. See Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir.2010).

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