Case Name: Martin Manuel SANCHEZ-BARRIGA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-23
Citations: 229 F. App'x 476
Docket Number: No. 05-75552
Parties: Martin Manuel SANCHEZ-BARRIGA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 229
Pages: 476–476

Head Matter:
Martin Manuel SANCHEZ-BARRIGA, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 05-75552.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 16, 2007.
Filed April 23, 2007.
Martin Manuel Sanchez-Barriga, Calexico, CA, pro se.
District Director, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Linda S. Wendtland, Esq., John R. Cunningham, Esq., DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, GRABER, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Martin Manuel Sanchez-Barriga, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's decision denying his application for cancellation of removal. We dismiss the petition for review.
Sanchez-Barriga contends the notice to appear served in 1998 was legally deficient and the stop-time rule was therefore not triggered until the notice was amended in 2003. We lack jurisdiction to consider this contention because he did not raise it before the agency. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir.2004) (requiring administrative exhaustion).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.