
    Carlos CASANOVA; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 04-71588.
    Agency Nos. [ AXX-XXX-XXX ], [ AXX-XXX-XXX ].
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 7, 2005.
    
    Decided Feb. 10, 2005.
    Ahmed M. Abdallah, Esq., Attorney at Law, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioners.
    Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Laguna Niguel, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Legal Officer, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Susan Houser, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before FERNANDEZ, GRABER and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 43(c)(2).
    
    
      
      This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Carlos and Veronica Casanova, husband and wife and natives and citizens of Mexico, petition pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals summarily affirming without opinion the Immigration Judge’s denial of their application for cancellation of removal.

We lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s discretionary determination that petitioners failed to demonstrate the requisite “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” to a qualifying relative. See Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft, 327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003).

Veronica Casanova also claims that the IJ erred in deciding that she failed to establish ten years of continuous physical presence in the United States. We note that the IJ indicated that Veronica Casanova’s “physical presence is in question,” but the IJ did not clearly decide the issue. In any event, petitioner never raised the issue before the BIA, and because she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies as to that claim, we also dismiss that claim. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     