Case Name: Silvana Maria Gianello CABRERA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-05-19
Citations: 573 F. App'x 652
Docket Number: No. 12-73687
Parties: Silvana Maria Gianello CABRERA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 573
Pages: 652–652

Head Matter:
Silvana Maria Gianello CABRERA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-73687.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 13, 2014.
Filed May 19, 2014.
Silvana Maria Gianello Cabrera, pro se.
Rosanne Perry, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Silvana Maria Gianello Cabrera, a native and citizen of Uruguay, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order returning the record to the Immigration Court without further action, in light of Gianello Cabrera's withdrawal of her appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture ("CAT"). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We determine de novo our jurisdiction. Alarcon-Serrano v. INS, 220 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir.2000). We dismiss the petition for review.
Gianello Cabrera withdrew her appeal before the BIA. Because she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies, we lack jurisdiction over the contentions in this petition for review. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004).
On December 26, 2012, Gianello Cabrera filed a motion to lift the stay of removal, and repeated this request in her opening brief. In light of our December 24, 2012, order lifting the temporary stay of removal, these motions are dismissed as moot.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.