22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T45a,MEMORANDUM Jose Dolores Berumen-Correa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review de novo constitutional claims, Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review. Berumen-Correa’s equal protection and due process retroactivity challenges to the IJ’s denial of section 212(c) relief are foreclosed by Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1207 , 1208 n. 7 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc). We lack jurisdiction to consider Beru-men-Correa’s remaining contentions because he failed to exhaust them before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004); Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir.2004) (the exhaustion requirement applies to “streamlined” cases). PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, DISMISSED in part. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T48c,

MEMORANDUM

Jose Dolores Berumen-Correa, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order summarily affirming an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252 . We review de novo constitutional claims, Khan v. Holder, 584 F.3d 773, 776 (9th Cir.2009), and we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

Berumen-Correa’s equal protection and due process retroactivity challenges to the IJ’s denial of section 212(c) relief are foreclosed by Abebe v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 1203, 1207 , 1208 n. 7 (9th Cir.2009) (en banc).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Beru-men-Correa’s remaining contentions because he failed to exhaust them before the BIA. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004); Zara v. Ashcroft, 383 F.3d 927, 931 (9th Cir.2004) (the exhaustion requirement applies to “streamlined” cases).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part, DISMISSED in part.

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