Oscar ELIZONDO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, U.S. Attorney General, Respondent, 219 F. App'x 383

PER CURIAM: The petitioner, Oscar Elizondo, seeks review of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision denying his application for the cancellation of removal. He argues that the BIA erred in finding that his removal would not result in extreme hardship to his parents. Because it involved the exercise of discretion, we lack jurisdiction to review the BIA’s hardship determination. See Rueda v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 831, 831 (5th Cir. 2004); 8 U.S.C. §§ 1229b(

b) and 1252(a)(2)(B)®. Moreover, to the extent Elizondo argues that we have jurisdiction to review the BIA’s

interpretation of INA § 213, 8 U.S.C. § 1183, because it is a legal question not subject to the jurisdiction-stripping provision of § 1252(a)(2)(B), see, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(D), his claim is unexhausted, and we are therefore without jurisdiction to consider that claim. See Wang v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir.2001). Accordingly, Elizondo’s petition for review is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. PETITION DISMISSED. Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.