Case Name: Amrit Pal SANGHERA, AKA Amritpal Sanghera, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-31
Citations: 691 F. App'x 873
Docket Number: No. 12-70035
Parties: Amrit Pal SANGHERA, AKA Amritpal Sanghera, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
Judges: Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 691
Pages: 873–874

Head Matter:
Amrit Pal SANGHERA, AKA Amritpal Sanghera, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.
No. 12-70035
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 24, 2017
Filed May 31, 2017
Mei F. Chen, Law Office of Mei F. Chen, San Jose, CA, for Petitioner
Lauren Fascett, OIL, Tiffany L. Walters, Trial Attorney, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, 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
Amrit Pal Sanghera, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals' ("BIA") order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge's removal order. We dismiss the petition for review.
We lack jurisdiction over this petition for review because Sanghera waived his right to appeal to the BIA, and he did not raise any contentions in his notice of appeal before the BIA that his waiver of appeal was not knowing and voluntary. See Brown v. Holder, 763 F.3d 1141, 1146 (9th Cir. 2014) ("On appeal to the BIA, however, [petitioner] did not claim that the waiver was not knowing and voluntary, and therefore we may not review this claim").
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publi- ' cation and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.