Case ID: f-appx_622/html/0700-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Luis Alberto MORALES-MUNOZ, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 12-70589.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 16, 2015.
    
    Filed Nov. 18, 2015.
    Thomas L. Spaniolo, Law Office of Thomas Spaniolo, Albuquerque, NM, for Petitioner.
    OIL, Kathryn Deangelis, Genevieve Holm, DOJ — 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: THOMAS, Chief Judge and IKUTA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.Ápp. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Luis Morales-Munoz, 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 (“IJ”) decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. •

In his petition for review, Morales-Munoz contests the IJ’s determination that he was statutorily ineligible for cancellation of removal because of his prior conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia under Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-3415. However, Morales-Munoz did not present this argument to the BIA and the BIA expressly held that he had waived the argument by failing to raise it in his appellate brief to the BIA. Because Morales-Munoz did not administratively exhaust the only issue he raises in his petition for review, we lack jurisdiction to consider it. See Sola v. Holder, 720 F.3d 1134, 1135 (9th Cir.2013) (holding that a “petitioner’s failure to raise an issue before the BIA generally constitutes a failure to exhaust, thus depriving this court of jurisdiction to consider the issue”).

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