Case Name: Armando ESPINOZA-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-02-11
Citations: 128 F. App'x 5
Docket Number: No. 03-74316
Parties: Armando ESPINOZA-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 128
Pages: 5–6

Head Matter:
Armando ESPINOZA-LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. Alberto GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 03-74316.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 7, 2005.
Decided Feb. 11, 2005.
Martin Zaehringer, Ventura, CA, for Petitioner.
District Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Lisa M. Arnold, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: FERNANDEZ, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Alberto Gonzales is substituted for his predecessor, John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States, pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 32(c)(2).
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Armando Espinoza-Lopez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision affirming an immigration judge's denial of his application for cancellation of removal for failure to establish good moral character under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(f)(7). Espinoza-Lopez contends that his confinement in a county jail did not amount to confinement in a "penal institution" and thus did not preclude a finding of good moral character. We lack jurisdiction to consider this issue because Espinoza-Lopez failed to exhaust administrative remedies. See Farhoud v. INS, 122 F.3d 794, 796 (9th Cir.1997). Moreover, his contention is foreclosed by Gomez-Lopez v. Ashcroft, 393 F.3d 882, 886 (9th Cir.2005).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
This disposition, is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.