Case ID: f-appx_676/html/0687-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Edwin LEON-ORRELLANO, AKA Edwin Leon-Arellano, AKA Wilson Cain Ramos, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 13-72318
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted January 18, 2017 
    
    Filed January 24, 2017
    James Eric Price, Esquire, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner
    Kiley L. Kane, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, DOJ—U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
    Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Edwin Leon-Orrellano, a native and citizen of Honduras, petitions for review of the Board .of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s order of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.

We lack jurisdiction over Leon-Orrella-no’s petition for review. Leon-Orrellano’s waiver of his right to appéal constitutes a failure to exhaust his administrative remedies. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Tijani v. Holder, 628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (the court lacks jurisdiction to consider legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the agency). Moreover, Leon-Orrellano failed to exhaust his contentions that his waiver of appeal was not knowing and intelligent, see Brown v. Holder, 763 F.3d 1141, 1146 (9th Cir. 2014) (“On appeal to the BIA, ... Brown did not claim that the waiver was not knowing and voluntary, and therefore we may not review this claim.”), or that his waiver resulted from ineffective assistance of counsel, see Tijani, 628 F.3d at 1080,

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