Case ID: f-appx_201/html/0507-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Miguel VALENCIA-MUNGUIA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 05-76450.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 11, 2006.
    
    Filed Sept. 14, 2006.
    Miguel Valencia-Munguia, Eloy, AZ, pro se.
    Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, San Francisco, CA, District Counsel, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Phoenix, AZ, James A. Hunolt, Esq., Kristin K. Edison, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
    Before: PREGERSON, T.G. NELSON, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Miguel Valencia Munguia, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissing petitioner’s appeal from the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for cancellation of removal.

Munguia contends that the IJ should not have considered his underlying conviction to be a conviction relating to a controlled substance for purposes of removal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). However, since petitioner did not exhaust his administrative remedies because he failed to raise the issue in his appeal to the BIA, we lack jurisdiction to consider the argument. Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir .2004).

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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.