Case Name: Jaime LOPEZ-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-09
Citations: 382 F. App'x 636
Docket Number: No. 05-76882
Parties: Jaime LOPEZ-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 382
Pages: 636–637

Head Matter:
Jaime LOPEZ-HERNANDEZ, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-76882.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 25, 2010.
Filed June 9, 2010.
Brian David Lerner, Law Offices of Brian D. Lerner, Long Beach, CA, for Petitioner.
Carol Federighi, Esquire, Senior Litigation Counsel, Mark Christopher Walters, Esquire, Assistant Director, M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, 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
Jaime Lopez-Hernandez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' order summarily affirming an immigration judge's decision finding him removable for participating in alien smuggling. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction to review Lopez-Hernandez's unexhausted contentions regarding his prior counsel's alleged ineffective assistance, his entitlement to warning pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and his right to counsel. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (no jurisdiction over legal claims not presented in administrative proceedings below).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.