Case ID: f-appx_637/html/0278-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Carlos LUNA-GARCIA, Petitioner, v. Loretta E. LYNCH, Attorney General, Respondent.
    No. 11-73092.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted and Filed Feb. 24, 2016.
    
    Carlos Luna-Garcia, Pomona, CA, pro se.
    OIL, Andrea Gevas, 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: GRABER and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and TUNHEIM, Chief District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable John R. Tunheim, Chief District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Carlos Luna-Garcia petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s (IJ) denial of his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss Luna-Garcia’s petition.

We lack jurisdiction to decide whether Luna-Garcia is eligible for cancellation of removal. Luna-Garcia contends that the IJ’s decision is erroneous because (1) his 1998 conviction under California Penal Code § 273.5 is not a “crime of domestic violence” under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i), and (2) his 1998 conviction under Cálifor-nia Health and Safety Code § 11383(c)(1) is not an “aggravated felony” under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101(a)(43)(B), 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), 1229b(a)(3). He did not, however, raise these arguments before the BIA. .His claims are therefore unexhausted and fall outside our jurisdiction to review. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir.2004).

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